working papers - document series - | nbb.be

NBB WORKING PAPER No. 56 - JUNE 2004

NATIONAL BANK OF BELGIUM

WORKING PAPERS - DOCUMENT SERIES

ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE FLEMISH MARITIME PORTS: REPORT 2002 _______________________________

Frédéric Lagneaux (*)

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bank of Belgium. The author would like to thank the specialists of the Flemish seaports and the colleagues of both the Microeconomic information department and the regional branches for their precious comments and advice. Special thanks go to Mr. Marc Van Kerckhoven for his unequalled experience and his personal commitment in searching for information and processing data. This analysis would not have been possible without him. The help and advice given unstintingly by the General Statistics and the Study departments, i.e. Mrs. Monica Maeseele, Mr. Tim Hermans and Mr. Luc Dresse, were also greatly appreciated.

(*) NBB, Microeconomic information Department, (e-mail: [email protected]).

NBB WORKING PAPER No.56 - JUNE 2004

Editorial Director

Jan Smets, Member of the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Belgium

Statement of purpose:

The purpose of these working papers is to promote the circulation of research results (Research Series) and analytical studies (Documents Series) made within the National Bank of Belgium or presented by outside economists in seminars, conferences and colloquia organised by the Bank. The aim is thereby to provide a platform for discussion. The opinions are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bank of Belgium. The Working Papers are available on the website of the Bank: http://www.nbb.be Individual copies are also available on request from: NATIONAL BANK OF BELGIUM Documentation Service boulevard de Berlaimont 14 B - 1000 Brussels Imprint: Responsibility according to the Belgian law: Jean Hilgers, Member of the Board of Directors, National Bank of Belgium. Copyright © National Bank of Belgium Reproduction for educational and non-commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged. ISSN: 1375-680X


Abstract This paper provides an extensive overview of the economic importance and development of the Flemish maritime ports, over the period 1995 - 2002. Focusing on the three major variables of value added, employment and investment, it also provides some information about the financial situation of a few vital segments in each port. In addition, it includes figures with respect to the ongoing growth of several cargo traffic segments and attempts to establish a link between these and the progress of the production in the industries at stake. The breakthrough of this research - compared to its previous editions - consists of evaluating the indirect effects of the sectors in question in terms of value added and employment. A few refinements have also been made, such as the routine geographical and functional selection of companies according to the cluster they belong to (NACE-Bel code approach), the limitation of administrative work incurred, the review of the company-size analysis, etc. Annual reports data from the Central Balance Sheet have been computed for the calculation of direct effects, the study of financial ratios and the analysis of the social balance sheet. For the estimation of indirect effects, Supply and Use Tables from the National Accounts Institute have been resorted to. The developments in the maritime ports sector are numerous nowadays, namely in the Hamburg - Le Havre range: concentration of capital, privatization of ports logistics services, expansion and dispersion of foreign trade, the internationalization of the production and consumption patterns (e.g. increase in containerized shipments), the latest requirements of world trade concerning transport and distribution. The increase in scale and specialization of the vessels inevitably impact on the operation of the ports. Production, trade and transport are not longer considered as individual, isolated activities, but are integrated in a single system. Therefore, ports have to evolve from mere centres of transport (discharging and loading of vessels) to logistics centres. Moreover, ports able to add value to the goods passing through the port area, have a major asset in a climate of increasing international competition. These developments are also mentioned in this report, since no Flemish port is an exception to this rule. Key words: branch survey, maritime cluster, subcontracting, indirect effects, transport intermodality, public

investments. JEL classification: C67, H57, J21, L22, L91, L92, R15, R34 and R41.


TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Preface....................................................................................................................1 Introduction and objectives of the report ............................................................1 1 International context........................................................................................4 1.1 Short description of the ports in the Hamburg - Le Havre Range............................................................... 4 1.2 Maritime goods traffic: comparative analysis ............................................................................................... 5 1.3 Employment in the range in 2002 ................................................................................................................. 5 2 Note on methodology ......................................................................................7 2.1 Selection and sampling ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Calculation of direct effects ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Estimation of indirect effects ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Presentational structure of the results .......................................................................................................... 8 3 General situation for all the flemish maritime ports .....................................9 3.1 Overall data on direct and indirect value added (VA) .................................................................................. 9

3.1.1 Changes in direct VA............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.2 Changes in indirect VA........................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 Overall data on direct and indirect salaried employment .......................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Changes in direct employment ........................................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Changes in indirect employment ........................................................................................................ 11

3.3 Comparison of change in value added and employment .......................................................................... 12 3.4 Overall data on direct investment ............................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Overall data on the social balance sheet ................................................................................................... 13

3.5.1 Contract type and human resources .................................................................................................. 14 3.5.2 Entries into employment and departures of personnel...................................................................... 15 3.5.3 Training ................................................................................................................................................ 18

3.6 Overall data on the financial situation......................................................................................................... 19 4 Specific situation of each port......................................................................21 4.1 Port of Antwerp ............................................................................................................................................ 21

4.1.1 Significant facts in 2002 ...................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.2 Value added......................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1.3 Salaried employment........................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.5 Financial ratios (private companies)................................................................................................... 30 4.1.6 Cargo traffic at the port of Antwerp in 2002 ....................................................................................... 31

4.2 Port of Ghent................................................................................................................................................ 32 4.2.1 Significant facts in 2002 ...................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Value added......................................................................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 Salaried employment........................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.5 Financial ratios (private companies)................................................................................................... 41 4.2.6 Cargo traffic at the port of Ghent in 2002........................................................................................... 43

4.3 Port of Ostend.............................................................................................................................................. 44 4.3.1 Significant facts in 2002 ...................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.2 Value added......................................................................................................................................... 45 4.3.3 Salaried employment........................................................................................................................... 48 4.3.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.5 Financial ratios (private companies)................................................................................................... 53 4.3.6 Cargo traffic in the port of Ostend in 2002 ......................................................................................... 54

4.4 Port of Zeebrugge........................................................................................................................................ 56 4.4.1 Significant facts in 2002 ...................................................................................................................... 56 4.4.2 Value added......................................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.3 Salaried employment........................................................................................................................... 60

NBB WORKING PAPER No.56 - JUNE 2004

4.4.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 63 4.4.5 Financial ratios (private companies)................................................................................................... 65 4.4.6 Cargo traffic in the port of Zeebrugge in 2002 ................................................................................... 67

4.5 Breakdown of findings by company size .................................................................................................... 67 5 Summary of the main results and prospects for the flemish maritime ports......................................................................................................................68 5.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 68

5.1.1 Value added......................................................................................................................................... 68 5.1.2 Employment......................................................................................................................................... 68 5.1.3 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 69

5.2 Prospects for the Flemish maritime ports................................................................................................... 70 Annex 1: Note on methodology............................................................................. 73 Annex 2: Port areas .............................................................................................. 87 Annex 3: List of NACE-bel branches .................................................................... 93 Annex 4: List of public administrations.................................................................. 98 Annex 5: Breakdown of indirect effects by sector: 1995 - 1999 ............................ 99 Annex 6: Breakdown of findings by company size.............................................. 107 Annex 7: Social balance sheet in 2002 .............................................................. 111 Annex 8: Maritime traffic by port in 2002 ............................................................ 114 Annex 9: Glossary and maritime transport.......................................................... 116

NBB WORKING PAPER No. 56 - JUNE 2004 1

Preface

For several years the National Bank of Belgium has published annual studies relating to the ports of Antwerp, Ghent, Ostend and Zeebrugge. These four studies will from now on be presented as a single item. In addition to this change of form, the methodology has been considerably changed, notably for the purpose of estimating the indirect effects linked to the activity of the port sector. This approach offers the best way of assessing their economic importance.

Introduction and objectives of the report

Restructuring of the ports went on throughout the nineties following changes in the economic environment: dispersal of centres of rapidly expanding foreign trade, accelerated internationalisation of production and consumption processes and new requirements for world trade in terms of transport and distribution. The port authorities now had to adopt new management styles to bring the ports more in line with the market. Rapid changes were seen, particularly in the container sector in the Hamburg – Le Havre range1, in order to make the ports in this region more attractive to this trade. The need for automation was also undeniable and the cargo handlers recorded significant job losses due to takeovers and mergers in this sector. « Cargo handling is [indeed] one of the activities most affected by technological progress and competition between ports. The market trend is towards concentration of capital, specialisation and vertical integration. Provision of these services is being transferred, little by little, from the public to the private sector in order to increase efficiency and reduce public expenditure on labour at ports. »2 This phase of liberalisation of the port cargo handling sector (dockers) across Europe was a result of the order made by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 December 1991 (also called the « Port of Genoa » order).3 Ports in Europe are of considerable importance in terms of labour. They have considerable infrastructure requirements and are at the heart of a huge network of interdependent branches of activity. Their growth is very important for the European economy. In addition, « (...) because of its geography, its history and, now, globalisation, the European Union (EU) remains heavily dependent on maritime transport:

• More than 90 p.c. of its foreign trade and around 43 p.c. of its domestic trade is done by sea; in total more than 1 billion tonnes of freight are unloaded and loaded in ports in the Union each year;4

• The shipping companies belonging to EU countries control a third of the world fleet and around 40 p.c. of EU trade is carried on ships controlled by European shipping companies (which doesn't mean that their ships are flying the flag of an EU member);

• The maritime transport sector, which also includes shipbuilding, the ports, fishing and related industries and services, employs some 2.5 million people in the European Union. »5

Just as in the air, road and inland water transport sectors, the process of liberalization and opening up maritime transport to competition from national markets within the Union is practically complete. (...) This necessary process has not, unfortunately, been sufficient to stop the continuing exodus of the community fleet to what are called « flags of convenience », i.e. countries offering shipping companies much more favourable 1 This term refers to the area where different important seaports, serving the same hinterland, operate and therefore are in

competition with each other. 2 Quotation from the EC Green Paper relating to « Maritime ports and infrastructures » published on 10 December 1997. 3 See the speech by K. Van Miert made at Ghent on 6 October 1997: « Competition rules and maritime ports », or see the

website of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. 4 The increase of the port infrastructure is mainly due to the growth of the container transport. The latter considerably reduces

the cost of shipping (for example compared to bulk cargo). The main factor which determines such a low cost level lies in the rapidity and flexibility of this mode of transport and the economies of scale it allows (some ships can carry up to 10,000 TEU – see glossary in annex 9). Maritime transport is also economically essential for distances greater than 1,500 kilometres. This explains its importance for extra-Community trade (Sources: work by Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue of the Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University, 11549 NY - USA; « Maritime Economics » 2nd edition, Martin Stopford).

5 Extracts from the « Overall view of the maritime transport policy » supplied by the European Commission. For further information, see the website http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime.

2 NBB WORKING PAPER No.56 - JUNE 2004

conditions than those in Europe in terms of taxation, social security and safety or environmental standards. (...) Today only 13 p.c. of the world fleet is flying the flag of a Member State as against 32 p.c. in 1970. (...) As a result of this evolution, which mainly affects the freight sector, the European Union has decided on two courses of action: 1) To define a global strategy aimed at making the community fleet competitive again by means of « positive

measures »; 2) To increase safety on ships and environmental protection by ensuring strict compliance within the Union with

international standards (« the polluter pays » principle). The Commission White Paper on the subject6, published in 2001, lists sixty practical measures designed to make significant improvements to the quality and efficiency of transport in Europe by 2010. The development of the ports in the European Union is one of the mainstays of this general strategy, with the particular objective of relieving congestion on traffic axes. According to this analysis, the growth of maritime transport in Europe currently relies on two pillars: the increase in capacity and intermodal7 efficiency of the ports and the opening up of the port services market to potential service providers. The European Community Green Paper relating to ports and maritime infrastructures, published on 10 December 1997, presents this sector as characterised by major disparities between regions in terms of structures, operations, organisations and legal systems. Competition between the ports continues to grow. The new technologies and the development of the trans-European rail network (TEN) are playing major roles. The TEN means that users and operators can be offered greater choice within an intermodal environment. A community framework would seem to be necessary in order to guarantee the principle of competition without obstruction or discrimination. These considerations obviously apply to Belgium, a country largely dependent on the rest of the world with regard to trade, since it exports the equivalent of two thirds of its GDP. Because of its geographical location and its role as a place of transit in Europe, Belgium would certainly not have been able to achieve its economic expansion without an excellent transport infrastructure (ports, waterways, railways, roads, etc.). In addition, there are few industries in Belgium which do not in some way depend on the ports in the Kingdom and it is important to know how these affect the economy as a whole. This is why, for the first time as part of this study, an attempt is being made to estimate the importance for the rest of the economy of the indirect effects linked to port activity. In view of the scope of this study, its structure and the priority given to the use of micro-economic data processed by the Bank, certain changes have been made to the methodology in relation to previous issues8. These relate mainly to the following aspects:

• Standardisation of the method for extracting micro-economic data and calculations to give a more systematic analysis. A break from the casuistical approach used up to now;

• Greater consistency with figures in the national accounts (NAI); • Limiting the use of surveys, which leads to time-saving and a reduction in the administrative overload

suffered by businesses (only a few public institutions or enterprises are still surveyed); • Previously unpublished presentation of the indirect effects of port activity based on an algorithm used

to study the ICT and car manufacturing sectors9,

These modifications were introduced with a view to maintaining consistency with previous issues with regard to definition of the sample and the industry groups studied. The results obtained with the classification previously used, relating to the « sectors » of port activity, are therefore also presented in chapter 4. With regard to calculation methods, however, some differences should be noted: for example, for investments or for distinction between large businesses and SMEs. The modifications are expected to improve the accuracy of the results. The micro-economic data used come mainly from the Central Balance Sheet Office and the NAI, the latter being used in particular for the calculation of indirect effects. As in previous issues of the study, this report presents an

6 2001 white paper entitled « European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide ». 7 Intermodality relates to transfer of goods from one mode of transport to another. See also annex 9. 8 See « Economisch Belang van de Zeehavens: Boekjaar 2001, methodologie » - NBB, Antwerp branch. 9 Respectively NBB publications: « The ICT sector in Belgium », Economic Review 2004/1 and « De autonijverheid in België:

het belang van het toeleveringsnetwerk rond de assemblage van personenauto's », Working Paper no. 38 of June 2003.


analysis of the economic, financial and social positions of businesses belonging to the industries which show an economic link with the ports concerned. The economic importance of the four ports is analysed on the basis of development from 1995 to 2002 of three basic aspects:

• value added at current prices; • FTE10 salaried employment; • investment at current prices.

Other developments are presented for the last three years: financial analysis and the social balance sheet based on the annual accounts. In order better to identify the developments in progress, the work has been done in two stages. The results of the Flemish maritime ports as a whole are given in chapter 3, while each port is reviewed separately in chapter 4.

10 Full-time equivalents; employment, whether direct or indirect, is expressed in this unit.


1 INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

In 2002 the world economy suffered even more acutely the consequences of the slowdown in growth which had started the previous year. The drop in consumer confidence, the growing uncertainty on the markets and international tensions were manifested by a postponement of business investment. The rate of growth of the Belgian economy fell below the 1 p.c. threshold and bankruptcies rose sharply, especially in Flanders. Port policy and port management were regionalised in Belgium in 1989. Public investment in the ports and maritime accessibility therefore became the responsibility of the Flemish regional authority. Since then, the Flemish Region has invested more than 3.3 billion euro11 in the four Flemish seaports, over half of which was allocated to maritime accessibility. Since 1995 a clear increase in these budgets has been recorded, particularly because of the programme to deepen the Scheldt12. This operation was begun on the west bank of the river and was practically completed in 2001. In spite of the economic slowdown, the transport sector was relatively less affected than most of the other sectors, and the ports managed to maintain their levels of activity, especially because of the structural growth in container traffic in the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge. Although within the Hamburg - Le Havre range the Flemish ports lost some points of their market share, this was essentially because the neighbouring ports caught up after the cumulative delays during the eighties.

1.1 Short description of the ports in the Hamburg - Le Havre Range The ports described here, from North to South, are only those foreign ports which belong to the range. Chapters 3 and 4 give a wide-ranging account of the three Belgian ports in the range - Antwerp, Ghent and Zeebrugge, together with Ostend. Hamburg: Major port or « Central hub port » of a huge region located where the North Sea meets the Baltic: it

is the largest German port and the third largest in Europe, a passage for sea traffic to and from northern, central and eastern Europe. This port also plays a major role in trade to Asia, especially China. Traffic volumes of just under 98 million tonnes were recorded there in 2002. Cargo traffic, which grew by 6 p.c. in the same year, and container cargo, which increased by 14.6 p.c., are the keys to this expansion.

Bremen: This is the most southerly German port, situated on the Weser about sixty kilometres from the North Sea coast: it benefits from excellent links with its hinterland. It handles almost 47 million tonnes every year.

Amsterdam: This Dutch port belongs to a region which includes the harbours of Beverwijk, Velsen/IJmuiden and Zaanstad. These are independent but work in close collaboration so that the figures given below cover all of them. This is one of the most important port regions in Europe, supported by a highly-developed transport network in its hinterland. Almost 70 million tonnes are transhipped each year at Amsterdam, a port which specialises in bulk cargo handling (coal, oil, animal feeding stuff) and is number one in the world for cocoa.

Rotterdam: This port, which extends over a 40-kilometre long area at the mouth of the Maas and covers 10,500 hectares, is one of the main crossroads for goods in the world and the leading world port for tonnage of freight handled annually. It holds first place in Europe for trade in chemicals and oil, iron ore, coal, metals and foodstuffs and leads the continent in container traffic. It has a highly-developed overland communication network and the deepest sea channel in the North Sea: in 2002 it handled 322 million tonnes and can accommodate ships with a draught of up to 22.5 metres, i.e. a maximum of 350,000 dwt13.

Dunkirk: The third French port, the first being Marseilles; it is situated at the entrance to the North Sea and occupies first place in France for the export of steel and sugar and for the import of ores, coal and West-Indian bananas. It handled more than 47 million tonnes in 2002. The tidal Port Ouest is accessible to ships of 300,000 tonnes for short stays.

11 Source : Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002. 12 Investments by the Flemish Region for improvement to maritime access amounted to 187.7 million euro in 2002, which

includes the amounts invested in deepening the Western Scheldt. 13 See glossary in annex 9.


Le Havre: First French port for handling general cargo including containers, second French oil port: it concentrates mainly on the import and export of automobiles with the United Kingdom. Since the Port 2000 project has been implemented, Le Havre is among the leaders in terms of growth in container traffic (+ 12.9 p.c. in 2002, just behind Hamburg and Antwerp). This port recorded a total of more than 68 million tonnes of transhipments in 2002, taking all types together (goods, oil, containers, automobiles, etc.).

1.2 Maritime goods traffic: comparative analysis In 2002, the total maritime14 traffic (loadings and unloadings) improved somewhat in all the ports in the range, surprisingly with the exception of Le Havre (table 1). In the ten ports (those in the range and Ostend) the total transhipment recorded is in fact 2.6 p.c. greater than that for the previous year, since it reached 827.1 million tonnes. This increase is attributable in the first place to the ports of Rotterdam (+ 2.4 p.c.), Hamburg (+ 5.6 p.c.) and Dunkirk (+ 7.0 p.c.), although throughput at the port of Antwerp only expanded by 1.2 p.c. But this is the logical consequence of the strong growth recorded in Antwerp port traffic in 2000 (+ 12.8 p.c.). The proportion of the traffic in the range (including Ostend) which relates to the Flemish seaports remained stable at 23.5 p.c. The total traffic for the range and Ostend amounted to 15.1 p.c. of world maritime traffic and has therefore recovered a few points after the nineties which were marked by significant growth in South-East Asia. The development of trade by the countries in this zone could however again affect this percentage in future years.

TABLE 1 TOTAL MARITIME TRAFFIC IN THE HAMBURG - LE HAVRE RANGE (INCLUDING OSTEND)

(millions of tonnes)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Average relative

share (in p.c.)

Relative share in 2002 (in

p.c.)

Hamburg ........................ 72.1 71.1 76.7 75.8 81.0 85.1 92.4 97.6 10.8 11.8 Bremen .......................... 31.2 31.6 34.0 34.5 36.0 45.0 46.1 46.6 5.1 5.6 Amsterdam .................... 31.2 36.7 36.8 36.1 37.6 44.6 49.3 50.3 5.4 6.1 Rotterdam ...................... 292.9 292.0 310.1 314.4 303.4 322.1 314.7 322.1 41.1 38.9 Antwerp .......................... 108.1 106.5 111.9 119.8 115.7 130.5 130.1 131.6 15.9 15.9 Ghent ............................. 21.6 21.0 23.0 23.6 23.9 24.0 23.5 24.0 3.1 2.9 Zeebrugge ..................... 30.6 28.5 32.4 33.3 35.4 35.5 32.1 32.9 4.3 4.0 Ostend ........................... 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.9 3.1 4.3 4.8 6.2 0.6 0.8 Dunkirk ........................... 39.4 34.9 36.5 39.2 38.3 45.3 44.5 47.6 5.4 5.8 Le Havre ........................ 53.8 56.2 59.7 66.9 64.4 68.0 69.0 68.1 8.4 8.2 Total for the ten ports .... 685.5 683.0 725.4 747.6 738.9 804.4 806.4 827.1 100.0 100.0 Total world traffic ........... 4,687 4,859 5,092 5,062 5,161 5,434 5,435 5,491 Share of the ten ports in world traffic (in p.c.) ....... 14.6 14.1 14.2 14.8 14.3 14.8 14.8 15.1

Sources: For traffic in the range: Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002 and data from the port authorities – including statistics

from the Port of Rotterdam; for world traffic: Shipping Statistics Yearbook 2003.

1.3 Employment in the range in 2002 It is rather difficult to develop a standard way of calculating the level of employment in the ports in the range since each port authority applies its own methods of estimation. The definition of maritime employment poses a particular problem. The inclusion of personnel put at the disposal of businesses established in the port poses another problem. On the basis of the figures supplied by the previous issues of this study (NBB data), the port of Antwerp, in terms of its workforce, was above the average for the range with 56,400 direct jobs in 2002. The port of Ghent had 27,500 direct jobs. Zeebrugge employed 11,200 people in the same year and the workforce at Ostend was 2,750. The figures obtained after applying the new methodology are slightly different (see below). For the ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg, Amsterdam and Bremen, the figures supplied by the various port authorities with regard to their population are 61,000, 56,000, 38,000 and 25,000 units respectively. Although all these figures relate to direct employment, they do not correspond to the values which might have been expected on the basis of the traffic observed over the last few years (table 1). At Rotterdam, for example, the method of estimating employment seems in effect quite restrictive: only the industries which exhibit an immediate economic link with the port are taken into consideration. Over the period 1995 – 2002, Rotterdam itself represented on 14 Goods shipped through inland navigation are not taken into account in these figures.


average 41.1 p.c. of the traffic in the range, which is more than two and a half times that of Antwerp. Even if the level of employment is not directly proportional to the tonnage passing through the ports, the nature of the tasks and the productivity encountered in the ports further influences the activity of the workforce. For example, the port of Rotterdam, which concentrates more on bulk liquids, needs proportionally fewer workers than the port of Antwerp, which is traditionally oriented towards general cargo. The figures relating to employment should be treated with great caution. Moreover, by estimating the indirect effects we can go further towards assessing the economic importance of the ports. These figures are given in detail for the Flemish seaports in the chapters which follow.


2 NOTE ON METHODOLOGY15

2.1 Selection and sampling Numerous studies16 on the economic impact of port activities focus on the notion of « maritime cluster », which groups together all the industries (companies and supplier chains) associated with the ports. For the sake of consistency with previous port studies and the Bank’s other publications, and in order to cover port activity as a whole, it was also decided to study other segments and present the results by « sector » of activity, as defined previously (detailed in annexes 1 and 3). Two « clusters » are thus considered within the framework of the study on Belgian port activity: • The maritime cluster, which includes branches of the ports themselves, and whose existence is essential to

them (management and maintenance, shipping, transhipment, loading, locks, storage, dredging, fishing, maritime services, etc.);

• Four segments that do not have an immediate economic link with port activity but which exhibit a high degree of interdependence with it by virtue of their geographical proximity, and vice versa. This cluster, known as « non-maritime » covers, in particular:

o the industry segment; o the wholesale trade segment; o the transport segment; o the logistics services segment.

Two approaches have been selected, depending on whether the company under review forms part of the maritime or non-maritime cluster. For non-maritime companies, geographical location within the port area17 is the determining factor. With regard to companies in the maritime sector, these have an immediate operational link with port activity. This does not necessarily imply that they are situated in the port area. Depending on the definition of their activity, a geographical approach based on the narrow or wider sense has been adopted for the selection of the companies of this cluster. Some maritime companies are, therefore, not situated in the port area. Nevertheless, their results are taken into account in chapter 3, and allocated, by port, in chapter 4.

2.2 Calculation of direct effects Direct effects are calculated mainly on the basis of the following variables, relating to the activities of the companies in the sample:

� Value added (or VA) at current prices; � Salaried employment; � Investment at current prices.

For companies established in more than one location, i.e. companies which have several subsidiaries, employment is calculated by subsidiary according to data from the National Accounts Institute (NAI) relating to employment data at places of business established within the port area (reference: NSI code18). Since this is the only information used for selecting these companies, it was decided to calculate their VA and their investment using the same procedure. Public company data are obtained from surveys by the various authorities concerned. This is the only category of company for which information needs to be gathered in this manner, and most of the data are taken from the annual accounts filed at the Central Balance Sheet Office and from the national accounts for the estimation of indirect effects.

15 The complete version of this note is given in annex 1 (calculation method, main adaptations from previous methodology,

impact on the results, etc.). 16 Including Dutch publications of the Nederlands Economisch Instituut and the Nationale Havenraad (Netherlands), and

studies by the Faculty of Applied Economics at Antwerp University. 17 The four port areas in question are given in annex 2. 18 National Statistical Institute.


The study goes on to describe some of the latest social changes for the years 2000 to 2002 in all the ports. The social balance sheet constitutes a consistent set of data covering different aspects of employment in the company. All private companies for which the data relating to the social balance sheet are available in sufficient quantity for these three years are analysed (constant sample). This is particularly the case for those filing annual accounts based on the full presentation. Three financial ratios are stated for the period 2000 – 2002 for each port, with regard to clusters and « sectors »:

• Return on equity after taxes; • Liquidity in broad sense; • Solvency.

2.3 Estimation of indirect effects The Supply and Use Tables available up to 199919 can be used to estimate the indirect effects linked to port activity, but with certain provisoes. The industries in ports actually generate indirect VA and indirect employment, especially through purchases which the companies under review make from subcontractors. On the basis of the Supply and Use Table we may determine the subcontracting branches and the dependency rates for a given branch. By applying this dependency rate to the total employment of the supplier or suppliers indirect employment is obtained. The same procedure is used to calculate the indirect VA, where the dependency rate is applied to the total VA. This method is applied to the industries covered by the study at two levels of calculation: level 1 - first rank suppliers – and the infinite level – the chain of all the upstream suppliers.

2.4 Presentational structure of the results Chapter 3 presents the results in terms of value added, employment and investment for all the ports. We should remember that some maritime companies, which are not established in port areas, have nevertheless been selected: they are covered under a separate heading. In chapter 4, the results relating to them are divided by port in order to assess their actual overall economic impact. In each summary table, the values relating to these companies are shown for information purposes. Additional details:

• For companies in the maritime cluster which are selected but are outside the port areas, direct employment, direct VA and direct investment is allocated to the different ports using the allocation formula relating to the direct VA weighting which each holds in all the ports, at the level of each SUT branch;

• The allocation of indirect effects for employment and VA by branch is carried out according to the same pattern as the allocation of direct effects observed in each port;

• For VA and employment, once the distinction between direct effects and indirect effects has been established, direct VA and direct employment are defined as the sum of what is achieved in the ports and what is allocated (i.e. the maritime companies established outside of the port area, see above). The concepts of total employment and total VA for their part express the sum of the direct and indirect figures. On the other hand, total investment is defined as the sum of the investment by companies established at the ports and investment attributed to ports by allocation: it therefore corresponds to direct investment;

• The percentage of annual average change over a given period is calculated by geometric mean.

19 The 2000 SUT (Supply and Use Tables) data were only published after the calculations for this study were carried out: the

figures for 1995, 1997 and 1999 respectively were used to calculate the indirect effects for the years 1995 - 96, 1997 - 98 and 1999 - 2002. Detailed results by sector are given for the years 1995 to 1999 (see annex 5).


3 GENERAL SITUATION FOR ALL THE FLEMISH MARITIME PORTS

This chapter relates to the situation observed from 1995 to 2002 for all four ports. In the following chapter, the details are given by port, for each variable studied, with an attempt to explain the changes observed.

3.1 Overall data on direct and indirect value added (VA) As defined in the methodology, the value added at current prices is the value which the company adds to its inputs by means of the production process. The sum of all the gross VA of private and public companies, households, non-profit-making organisations, etc. is equivalent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

TABLE 2 VALUE ADDED (millions of euros)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)

Annual average change (in p.c.)

Direct effects Antwerp ............ 5,475.7 5,548.3 5,956.1 6,106.0 6,091.3 6,927.0 6,705.3 6,936.4 63.2 26.7 3.4 Ghent................ 2,670.9 2,731.0 2,565.8 2,897.9 2,661.5 2,891.4 2,795.6 2,929.0 26.7 9.7 1.3 Ostend .............. 188.0 201.4 217.3 236.0 271.8 255.9 319.1 313.8 2.9 66.9 7.6 Zeebrugge ........ 514.4 534.9 516.7 583.1 630.9 686.7 694.6 663.2 6.0 28.9 3.7 Outside ports20.. 122.2 112.6 208.9 130.2 121.7 125.5 139.0 124.4 1.1 1.7 0.2

Total direct effects ............... 8,971.3 9,128.1 9,464.9 9,953.1 9,777.2 10,886.4 10,653.6 10,966.8 100.0 22.2 2.9 Indirect effects

1st level ............ 5,105.6 5,265.3 5,517.1 5,574.8 5,924.7 5,882.3 6,021.2 6,322.0 56.1 23.8 3.1

2nd level ........... 2,094.8 2,178.2 2,318.4 2,386.6 2,611.3 2,598.8 2,669.4 2,803.5 24.9 33.8 4.3 3rd level ............ 847.1 882.9 969.9 1,009.0 1,128.1 1,127.0 1,160.3 1,213.4 10.8 43.2 5.3 Next levels ........ 583.5 609.4 701.9 742.1 856.8 862.1 889.0 922.5 8.2 58.1 6.8

Total indirect effects ............... 8,630.9 8,935.8 9,507.2 9,712.4 10,520.9 10,470.3 10,740.0 11,261.4 100.0 30.5 3.9 Total value added ...............

17,602.2 18,063.9 18,972.1 19,665.6 20,298.1 21,356.7 21,393.6 22,228.1 - 26.3 3.4

Source: NBB.

3.1.1 Changes in direct VA

Over the eight years in question, the port of Antwerp has achieved on average 62.3 p.c. of the VA for all four ports (table 2). The greatest increase was recorded in 2000, with 11.3 p.c. growth compared to 1999. This growth should be compared to the excellent performance of the Belgian economy in 2000, when GDP grew by 3.7 p.c.21. From 1995 to 2002 it was at Ostend that the VA increased most significantly (+ 66.9 p.c., i.e. 7.6 p.c. as an annual average). This figure reached 3.4, 1.3 and 3.7 p.c. respectively for Antwerp, Ghent and Zeebrugge. The years 1998 and 2000 were exceptional in terms of production (direct VA associated with the ports) for Ghent (+ 12.9 p.c.) and Antwerp (+ 13.7 p.c.) respectively. The contrast between the growth in VA at Antwerp and Ghent arose particularly from the more favourable geographical position of Antwerp (see next chapter). For all ports together, the average growth in direct VA reached 2.9 p.c. per annum, a rate higher than that of inflation in 2002 (general domestic output price index of 1.3 p.c.22). The VA achieved in the ports was therefore almost 11 billion euro.

20 As already indicated, a significant proportion of the VA also relates to the companies in the maritime cluster situated outside

the port area (detailed methodological explanations in annex 1). When each port is studied separately, care is taken to allocate the VA of the companies in each port.

21 Change observed from 1999 to 2000, at 1995 prices. Source: NBB Annual Report 2002. 22 Source: Belgostat Online http://www.belgostat.be.


3.1.2 Changes in indirect VA As pointed out above and explained in detail in point 5.2 of annex 1, we can distinguish several levels of calculation of indirect effects. Level 1 only takes into account first rank suppliers or sub-contractors. But this is not sufficient to measure all the indirect VA, which implies that we have to consider all the higher levels. If we add the figures obtained for the infinite level to those for direct VA, we can estimate the total economic impact of the sector in terms of production. Only a few are given in table 2, the volumes diminishing as the number of middlemen increases. From 1995 to 2002, the indirect VA increased on average by 3.9 p.c. per annum23 (table 2). Taking all levels together, the most significant increase is found in 1999 (+ 8.3 p.c.). This growth was followed by a slowdown the following year and a weak recovery in 2001. The next year was a favourable one for suppliers of the companies in question since the indirect VA increased, taking all levels together, by 4.9 p.c. and, at first level, by 5.0 p.c. It amounted to 11.3, which is well above that of direct VA, and 6.3 billion euro respectively. This recovery is analysed in greater detail below. The indirect VA for all suppliers of the companies in question is practically equivalent to the total direct VA achieved in the Flemish maritime port sector (exactly 99.97 p.c. over this period). The ratio of indirect VA to direct VA reached a peak in 1999, as it increased by 10.3 p.c. to reach 107.6 p.c. With a return to values lower than the 100 p.c. threshold, the year 2000 seemed to mark a significant fall in that trend, although in the two following years the ratio increased by 4.8 p.c. and 1.9 p.c. respectively, taking all levels together, and by 4.6 and 2.0 p.c. for the first level. In 2002 the ratio amounted to 102.7 p.c.

3.2 Overall data on direct and indirect salaried employment Direct employment is measured in FTE24, on the basis of the annual accounts filed by companies. If certain corrections25 are made, indirect employment calculated using the supply and use table26 may be expressed in the same units. The importance of port workers in employment in the ports studied should be noted. In 2002, the annual report published by the Vlaamse Havencommissie indicated that their work had increased at Antwerp and Ostend and diminished at Ghent and Zeebrugge. These port workers are, of course, included in the employment figures which are given in detail below, particularly with regard to the cargo handling sector (maritime cluster). The majority of the contingent is based at Antwerp (C.E.P.A.27). The general contingent may be distinguished from the logistics contingent. The first includes mainly dockers and goods handlers and the second includes more specialised personnel such as warehousemen.

23 The changes observed because of the application of the VA allocation formula for each port (see annex 1) are as follows:

+ 3.2 , + 5.3 , - 3.8 and + 6,3 p.c. respectively for Antwerp, Ghent, Ostend and Zeebrugge (see details in chapter 4). 24 Full-time equivalents. 25 See point 5.2.2 in annex 1. 26 NAI data. Details of the algorithm used to estimate the indirect effects are included in point 5.2 of annex 1. 27 Centrale der Werkgevers aan de Haven van Antwerpen. The regularly used acronym C.E.P.A. stands for Centrale des

Employeurs au Port d'Anvers. In English: Group of Employers at the Port of Antwerp.


TABLE 3 EMPLOYMENT (FTE)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Direct effects Antwerp ............ 59,618 59,596 59,703 58,695 57,776 59,300 61,074 59,472 57.8 - 0.2 0.0 Ghent................ 27,905 26,885 27,300 27,493 27,909 28,370 29,348 28,309 27.5 1.4 0.2 Ostend .............. 4,909 4,847 4,688 4,290 4,296 3,745 3,981 3,960 3.8 - 19.3 - 3.0 Zeebrugge ........ 9,394 9,051 9,117 9,122 9,493 9,801 9,846 9,465 9.2 0.8 0.1 Outside ports .... 2,778 2,032 1,871 1,942 1,883 1,835 1,950 1,736 1.7 - 37.5 - 6.5 Total direct effects ............... 104,604 102,410 102,680 101,541 101,358 103,051 106,199 102,942 100.0 - 1.6 - 0.2 Indirect effects 1st level ............ 62,694 63,621 63,367 64,415 65,544 64,859 66,980 62,720 56.9 0.0 0.0 2nd level ........... 25,661 26,075 26,111 26,720 27,818 28,010 29,022 27,035 24.5 5.4 0.8 3rd level ............ 10,348 10,521 10,845 11,150 11,821 12,003 12,455 11,614 10.5 12.2 1.7 Next levels ........ 7,228 7,348 7,917 8,183 8,967 9,158 9,502 8,873 8.0 22.8 3.0 Total indirect effects ............... 105,931 107,566 108,240 110,468 114,150 114,031 117,959 110,242 100.0 4.1 0.6 Total employment ....

210,535

209,976

210,920

212,009

215,508

217,081

224,158

213,184

-

1.3

0.2

Source: NBB.

3.2.1 Changes in direct employment The level of employment seems relatively stable in the ports, down by an average of just 0.2 p.c. per annum (table 3). This slight contraction is due mainly to Ostend, where employment has deteriorated on average by 3.0 p.c. per annum. At the port of Antwerp, however, there is considerable stability. With regard to Ghent and Zeebrugge, the workforce there has increased on average by 0.2 and 0.1 p.c. respectively per annum. The largest rise in overall direct employment, recorded in 2001, was 3.1 p.c., the employment level amounting to 106,199 FTE. The year 2002 saw this gain disappear as it fell again to 102,942 FTE for the four ports. Over the period under review, the port of Antwerp accounted on average for 57.6 p.c. of the total workforce in the sector. In 2002 it was in fact employing 59,472 FTE.

3.2.2 Changes in indirect employment There is a certain degree of stability observable here as well, since indirect employment has increased by just 0.6 p.c. on average per annum28 . However, a significant increase in indirect employment, taking all levels together, was recorded in 1999 (+ 3.3 p.c.). First level indirect employment (first rank suppliers) recorded its strongest growth in 2001 with 3.3 p.c. The same year, total indirect employment increased by 3.4 p.c. The largest fall over the period in question was in 2002, with a decrease in indirect employment of 6.5 p.c. taking all ports together (- 6.4 p.c. at first level). After peaking at 117,959 FTE in 2001, indirect employment taking all levels together fell back to 110,242 FTE in 2002. Subcontracting was a very marked trend at the end of the nineties and these estimates show the extent of the phenomenon and its evolution. For the years under review, estimated total indirect employment for all the Flemish maritime ports, taking all levels together, produced an average figure of 107.7 p.c. of direct employment. This ratio grew to 112.6 p.c. in 1999 and stabilised at 110.7 p.c. in 2000 and 111.1 p.c. in 2001. It then fell again to 107.1 p.c. in 2002, i.e. less than the average level for the period. Subcontracting in the ports covered by the study therefore seemed to show a slight decline in the most recent years. Chapter 4 examines the extent of this phenomenon port by port.

28 Calculated using the employment allocation formula (see annex 1). This figure corresponds to an average annual change of

+ 0.2, + 2.2, - 7.4 and + 2.4 p.c. respectively in indirect employment in the ports of Antwerp, Ghent, Ostend and Zeebrugge (see chapter 4).


3.3 Comparison of change in value added and employment

GRAPH 1 CHANGES IN VA AND EMPLOYMENT

90000

95000

100000

105000

110000

115000

120000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Emplo

ymen

t (in

FTE)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

VA (in

millio

ns o

f eur

os)

Direct employment Indirect employmentDirect VA Indirect VA

Source: NBB.

Graph 1 shows that direct and indirect VA changes in almost the same way. Anyway the correlation is quite high. However the same cannot be said about employment. Although over the period in question direct employment is relatively stable, with a peak in 2001, the same is not the case for indirect employment. The latter, after strong growth up to 2001, shows a marked drop the following year. The decline in employment by the Antwerp shipping companies, in the car manufacturing at Antwerp and Ghent and in the fishing sector at Ostend explains the decrease in indirect employment in 2002, since these three sectors are heavily dependent on external manpower, the ratio of indirect to direct employment sometimes exceeding the 200 p.c. mark. The fall in indirect employment is also explained by the deterioration in the economic climate in 2002. As noted in point 3.5, stagnation in temporary working is observed as well. The graph also highlights the changes between indirect and direct VA in 1999 and 2000. Although these two variables change according to the same pattern, we can in fact see a significant positive difference between indirect VA and direct VA in 1999, which becomes negative in 2000. The origin of the first event can be found in the fact that in 1999, services provided by shipping companies improved at Antwerp, Ghent and Zeebrugge; this year was also favourable to the other Antwerp logistics services (mainly coordination centres) and the Ghent and Ostend food industry. Although other sectors, which were not very dependent on subcontracting, saw their production fall in the same year, those just quoted, which are heavily dependent on external services, saw an increase in their own production. This explains why the curve for indirect VA moves above that for direct VA. At the same time, the reversal of the trend observed in 2000 is explained by a fall in activity in the car manufacturing sector at Antwerp and Ghent and with regard to shipping companies at Ghent and Zeebrugge.


3.4 Overall data on direct investment The study relates to tangible fixed assets at current prices as fixed assets realised in the course of the financial year. Some corrections are made in the event of takeovers, as stated in the methodology (annex 1).

TABLE 4 INVESTMENT (millions of euros)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Antwerp ................ 1,098.2 1,231.8 1,224.6 1,211.8 1,012.0 1,321.4 1,559.5 1,481.3 59.2 34.9 4.4

Ghent.................... 331.4 447.4 385.3 430.5 659.0 600.3 629.8 802.4 32.0 142.1 13.5

Ostend .................. 154.2 50.8 90.1 101.5 117.7 97.5 64.8 58.5 2.3 - 62.0 - 12.9

Zeebrugge ............ 109.9 97.4 130.1 187.6 191.0 166.4 122.7 110.0 4.4 0.1 0.0

Outside ports ........ 55.5 65.4 71.5 80.1 70.5 77.9 63.2 51.6 2.1 - 7.0 - 1.0

Total investment. 1,749.2 1,892.8 1,901.5 2,011.5 2,050.3 2,263.5 2,440.0 2,503.8 100.0 43.1 5.3

Source: NBB.

For Antwerp, the year 2001 constitutes a peak for the period concerned, with investments exceeding 1.5 billion euro (table 4). The upward trend, which began in 2000, seemed to be confirmed after a more modest year in 1999. From 1995 to 2002, the port of Ghent saw investments more than double (+ 142.1 p.c., i.e. + 13.5 p.c. as an annual average). At Antwerp, the amount of investment has increased by 4.4 p.c. per annum over the same period. On the other hand, there was stagnation at Zeebrugge (after several increases in 1997 and 1998, in 2002 it returned to the 1995 level) and a drop of 12.9 p.c. per annum at Ostend. In 2002, investments at current prices reached 2.5 billion euro for all ports, i.e. a rise of 2.6 p.c. in comparison to the previous year: this level was above the investment price index for 2002 (- 0.4 p.c.29) This trend came from the port of Ghent, which recorded a rise of 27.4 p.c. However, investments dropped in the other three ports: - 5.0 p.c. for Antwerp, - 9.6 p.c. for Ostend and - 10.4 p.c. for Zeebrugge. These developments are examined in detail in the next chapter.

3.5 Overall data on the social balance sheet30 Since its introduction in 1996, the social balance sheet has offered a consistent data set covering changes in various aspects of company employment ranging from staff appointments and staff composition to employees’ contractual status and qualifications, personnel costs, training policy and reasons for contract termination. As not all companies included in this study file their annual accounts based on the full presentation, the findings below are not exhaustive. Indeed, the constant sample defined for the period from 2000 to 2002 groups together 1,555 companies, which is slightly less than half of the total population considered in this study (3,147 companies in 2002). Comments focus on the changes that took place during the last three years. The 2002 figures are given in greater detail, by sector, in annex 7.

29 Source: Belgostat online (http://www.belgostat.be) 30 The national data given in point 3.5 are taken from the Social Balance Sheet 2002 (NBB, Economic Review 2003/4). The

results given here relate to a constant sample and are aggregated for all of the ports.


3.5.1 Contract type and human resources In 2002, the port staff as a whole comprised 60.5 p.c. blue-collar workers and 39.5 p.c. white-collar staff, as opposed to 61.8 p.c. and 38.2 p.c. in the previous year.

GRAPH 2 HOURS WORKED AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNAL HUMAN RESOURCES31

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

140,0

160,0

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Full-time hours worked Part-time hours worked Total hours worked

Total

no.

of ho

urs (

in mi

llions

)

0,0

1 000,0

2 000,0

3 000,0

4 000,0

5 000,0

Asso

ciated

costs

(in m

illions

of e

uros

)

No. hours worked(constant sample)

Costs associated with hours worked(constant sample)

Source: NBB.

For the companies under review as a whole, an increase was seen from 103,051 FTE in 2000 to 106,199 FTE in 2001, falling back to 102,942 FTE in 2002 (table 3). This change can also be seen at the level of full-time hours worked (constant sample), which increased from 131.6 million in 2000 to 132.8 million in 2001, before falling back to 130.2 million in 2002 (graph 2). Part-time employment developed in a different way, increasing consistently from 2000 to 2002. In 2002, it totalled 6.5 million hours, an increase of 17.4 p.c. against the previous year – exceeding the national average -, while full-time work fell, in these same terms, by 2.0 p.c. But full-time employment still accounts for 93.4 p.c. of total port employment (in FTE), above the national average (88.7 p.c.) Staff costs increased for both full-time and part-time employment. In 2002, despite the fact that the number of full-time hours worked fell, these costs continued to rise due, particularly, to expenditure related to early retirement (see table 5). Staff costs increased from 4.6 billion euro in 2000 to 4.9 billion in 2002 (+ 8.3 p.c., an increase above the 2.2 p.c. rate of inflation for domestic producer prices recorded between 2000 and 200232). Turning to staff costs associated with part-time work, these rose from 157.6 to 316.4 million euro in two years. This represents an increase of 100.7 p.c. for this period33.

31 Term covering employees recorded in the personnel register of the companies under review. 32 Source: Belgostat online. 33 This increase, which appears disproportionate compared to the increase in part-time hours worked, stems from the cargo

handling sector (see annex 7). This sudden rise is explained in the accounts of C.E.P.A.


GRAPH 3 HOURS WORKED AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXTERNAL HUMAN RESOURCES34

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Temporary hours worked Hours worked by staff placedat the enterprise's disposal

Total

no. o

f hou

rs (in

millio

ns)

0,050,0100,0150,0200,0250,0300,0350,0400,0

Asso

ciate

d cos

ts (in

millio

ns o

f eur

os).

No. of hours worked(constant sample)

Costs associated with hours worked(constant sample)

Source: NBB.

Note: The analysis of graph 3 relates only to companies filing their accounts based on the full presentation. The number of hours worked by temporary staff barely changed, increasing from 4.8 to 4.9 million hours between 2000 and 2002 (graph 3). The costs associated with these services increased at current prices from 107.9 to 118.3 million euro in two years (+ 9.7 p.c., an increase above the 2.2 p.c. rate of inflation for domestic producer prices recorded between 2000 and 2002). The number of hours worked by staff placed at the disposal of the companies rose from 10.3 million hours in 2000 to 11.2 million hours in 2002. The costs associated with these services continued to rise in 2002, reaching 379.9 million euro, an increase of 9.8 p.c. compared to 2000.

3.5.2 Entries and departures of personnel For the ports as a whole, net employment fell in 2002, due more to the decline in the number of jobs created (graph 4), than to job cuts. Indeed, fewer jobs were cut in 2002, but this movement was not enough to counter the net reduction in the workforce (see graph 7). This was particularly the case in the chemicals, metal-working and car manufacturing industries, as well as in fishing. Whilst 20,549 FTE were still being created in 2000, this figure fell to 18,470 FTE and 15,143 FTE respectively over the next two years, the fall in 2002 amounting to 18.0 p.c. As far as contracts for an indefinite period are concerned, a slight decrease was noted initially, from 10,603 FTE in 2000 to 10,519 FTE in 2001. 2002 saw a fall of 20.9 p.c. with regard to these contracts as only 8,326 FTE were created. Based on these last results, it can be deduced that the creation of fixed-term posts is also in decline (- 14.3 p.c. in 2002), in contrast to the creation of part-time employment.

34 Category encompassing temporary staff and staff placed at the disposal of the companies under review.


GRAPH 4 TOTAL NUMBER OF STAFF EMPLOYED IN THE PORTS

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Total no. of employees taken on during the year No. of employees taken on during the year on contract for an indefinite period

No. o

f emp

loyee

s (in

FTE)

Totaal constant staal

Source: NBB.

Note: The analysis of graphs 5 and 6 relates only to companies filing their accounts based on the full presentation.

In 2001 and 2002, men accounted for 84.9 p.c. of port staff. Although a significant decline in the number of jobs being offered to the least qualified men was recorded during this latter year, this was less so in the case of graduates. In fact, jobs created for holders of primary school certificates, secondary school diplomas or a non-university higher education diploma fell by 47.9, 7.2 and 16.4 p.c. respectively, whereas the creation of jobs for graduates climbed by 11.0 p.c. – a particularly marked trend in the oil industry. These figures must be seen in the context of a 18.0 p.c. fall in FTE jobs created (graph 4). In 2002, job creation totalled 1,315 FTE among the least qualified men, 5,712 for holders of secondary school diplomas, 1,307 for holders of non-university higher education diplomas and 743 for graduates (graph 5). In 2001 and 2002, women accounted for 15.1 p.c. of port staff. Although, as with the men, a significant decline was recorded in 2002 in terms of jobs available to women entering from primary (- 12.2 p.c.), secondary (- 13.8 p.c.) or non-university higher (- 18.3 p.c.) education, it also applied to those with a university degree (- 20.8 p.c.). These figures must be seen in the context of an 18.0 p.c. fall in FTE jobs created (graph 4). In 2002, job creation among women was 334 FTE for the least qualified, 1,670 for holders of secondary school diplomas, 707 for non-university higher education (a higher percentage than that of men – graph 6) and 217 for university graduates. Unlike 2000 and 2001, 2002 was therefore not characterised by a significant rise in jobs created for highly qualified women.


GRAPH 5 QUALIFICATION LEVEL GRAPH 6 QUALIFICATION LEVEL OF MALE STAFF OF FEMALE STAFF HIRED IN 2002 HIRED IN 2002 (FTE) (FTE)

1 31514%

5 71264%

1 30714%743

8%

primary secondaryhigher non-univ. universitary

33411%

1 67058%

70724%217

7%

primary secondaryhigher non-univ. universitary

Source: NBB. Source: NBB.

GRAPH 7 TOTAL NUMBER OF TERMINATED CONTRACTS IN THE PORTS

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Total no. of employees havingleft their job during the year

Total no. of employees on contract for an indefiniteperiod having left their job during the year

No. o

f em

ploye

es (in

FTE

)

Total constant sample

Source: NBB.

The changes in gross departures of staff (graph 7) must be seen in relation to the gross entries into employment of staff (graph 4), in order to obtain the balance of net job creation or job losses. Despite the constant fall in the number of job cuts - from 18,961 FTE in 2000 to 18,014 in 2001 and 17,337 in 2002 -, net job creation also shrank. Despite totalling 1,588 and 456 FTE in 2000 and 2001 respectively, this balance turned negative the following year with net job losses of 2,193 FTE. These figures do not fully show the real situation. A substantial part of the information is in fact not included in the social balance sheet analysis as a result of certain companies becoming defunct (bankruptcy, liquidation, takeover, etc.). It is indeed a constant sample which does not fully reflect economic reality. On the other hand, if the whole sample of this study on direct effects is taken into account, net job losses for 2002 actually amounted to 3,257 FTE, a 3.0 p.c. net loss of jobs in relation to 2001. This figure is worse than the deteriorating employment figure recorded in the national accounts for the economy


as a whole (0.8 p.c. in 2002). Despite a slight increase in production and port activity, the port employment situation could thus hardly be considered favourable in 2002. The reasons given for contract terminations can be broken down as follows (this point only relates to companies having filed accounts based on the full presentation):

TABLE 5 REASONS GIVEN FOR TERMINATING CONTRACTS (percentages)

2000

2001

2002

Retirement.................................... 4.9 3.7 4.0

Early retirement ............................ 4.9 6.5 9.9

Dismissal ...................................... 13.9 17.4 17.7

Other reasons (in particular ending of temporary contracts) .... 76.3 72.4 68.4

Source: NBB.

Since 2000, the proportion of dismissals within this total has increased significantly, by 24.8 p.c. in two years (table 5). With 17.7 p.c. of contracts ended for reasons of dismissal in 2002, this remains just below the average noted for all Belgian companies filing accounts based on the full presentation (17.9 p.c.). This is followed by early retirements: their number more than doubled over the same period, partly explaining the continuing increase in staff costs during 2002, despite a fall in staff numbers.

3.5.3 Training

GRAPH 8 HOURS OF TRAINING AND ASSOCIATED COSTS

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Training followed by male employees Training followed by female employees

Tota

l no.

of ho

urs (

in mi

llions

)

0,010,020,030,040,050,060,070,080,090,0100,0

Asso

ciate

d cos

ts (in

millio

ns o

f eur

os).

No. of hours training (constant sample) Costs associated with training (constant sample)

Source: NBB.

The number of men following a training course has been declining since 2000. Whereas 41,747 men were involved in some form of training in 2000, this number had fallen to 40,160 and 38,042 in 2001 and 2002 respectively. The respective change in the number of training hours for the years 2000 - 2002 is as follows: 2.3, 1.7 and 1.6 million hours. In relation to the previous year, account being taken of the change in male employment, this last decrease represented a fall of 1.7 p.c., with the proportion of men following a training course in 2002 falling to 50.8 p.c., whereas the costs associated with this policy continued to rise (+ 5.1 p.c.).


More women participated in training sessions during 2002 (+ 1.1 p.c.), the number involved being 6,573, or 48.9 p.c. of the total number of female employees. In 2000 and 2001, the number of female employees involved was 6,019 and 6,479 respectively. The gap is thus gradually being closed with the men, even though a certain fall in number of hours devoted to their training could be noted: 0.3 million hours in 2000 and 0.2 million hours in 2001 and 2002. Training sessions were thus more frequent but shorter. A slight drop in associated costs incurred by companies in 2002 was also noted (- 4.8 p.c., graph 8). The proportion of hours devoted to training in relation to the total number of hours worked - for both men and women - fell from 1.42 p.c. in 2001 to 1.32 p.c. in 2002, a level which remained above the national average (0.90 p.c. recorded in 2002). In spite of the difficulties encountered in terms of employment, companies that rely on the ports are maintaining their staff training efforts, particularly with regard to women, whilst endeavouring to limit costs. This is particularly the case in the following sectors: other services, the electronics and oil industries where more workers are spending time training. In cargo handling, too, there would seem to be an effort to broaden, update and improve workers’ qualifications. This translates into a dynamic human resources policy and lifelong training efforts. This will cannot yet be seen, however, in the 2002 figures.

3.6 Overall data on the financial situation The financial ratios are aggregated by port and compared to levels recorded for the economy as a whole (non-financial companies). The detailed results by port are presented in chapter 4. The trend over the last three years under review is as follows:

TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL RATIOS BY PORT

Ports

Return on equity after tax (in p.c.)

Liquidity in broad sense

Solvency (in p.c.)

2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Antwerp................ 5.3 3.8 7.4 1.2 1.4 0.9 48.3 50.9 47.4

Ghent ................... 8.9 3.3 - 7.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 47.0 46.2 41.8

Ostend ................. 4.4 7.2 7.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 32.1 33.7 36.1

Zeebrugge............ 5.5 5.9 2.8 1.2 1.2 1.3 37.6 43.4 45.2

Total Ports .......... 6.2 3.8 4.5 1.2 1.2 0.9 47.1 48.9 46.0

Non-financial companies ..........

9.4

5.0

2.7

1.1

1.2

1.2

42.9

45.9

45.7

Source: NBB.

The same method is used to calculate the ratios for the ports and for non-financial companies as a whole, i.e. aggregation. This method differs somewhat from that used by the end of 2003 in the Economic Review35. • Although the profitability of Belgian non-financial companies almost halved in 2002, that of all the ports

under review increased slightly, with the exception of Zeebrugge and Ghent. The strongest growth was noted at Antwerp port, where the average ratio in 2002 was more than 2.5 times that of non-financial companies as a whole, due particularly to good performance on the part of the chemicals and energy industries (see chapter 4). From 2000 to 2002, profitability fell rapidly at Ghent port and turned negative, due to bad results in the metal-working industry. At Zeebrugge, it was the metal-working and electronics industries that primarily pushed down profitability;

• In 2002, the liquidity ratio was less than 80 p.c. that of non-financial companies. The Antwerp oil industry’s

cash position explains this development and, to a lesser extent, that of logistics services at Ghent. For the ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge, liquidity was above that of the economy as a whole, due to a reduction in the short-term debts of services in the former and in the electronics industry in the latter;

35 In the chapter on non-financial companies’ results in 2002 (NBB, Economic Review 2003/4), the median ratio method is

used.


• A slight decline in solvency was noted in 2002 at the ports of Antwerp (chemicals and car manufacturing

industries) and Ghent (metal-working and electronics industries). Ghent port’s solvency is less than the average for non-financial companies as a whole. At Ostend and Zeebrugge, the opposite situation can be noted in the metal-working and cargo handling sectors respectively.


4 SPECIFIC SITUATION OF EACH PORT

4.1 Port of Antwerp

4.1.1 Significant facts in 200236

• Context The signs of economic recovery at the beginning of 2002 did not last. World growth in output however amounted to 2.8 p.c. in spite of poor performances in Europe (0.7 p.c. for the EU, the same as Belgium at 2000 prices37). During this period, the prospects for recovery in 2003, which have since proved unfounded, helped to support trade and, consequently, the freight level. According to the Antwerp port authority Annual Report 2002, this year was relatively favourable to the port's activity. The total volume of freight (131.6 million tonnes transhipped in total) placed it in the Top 10 of the world’s major ports, in fourth place for international maritime goods traffic38 and tenth place for container traffic. Container freight remained the main element in the growth of the port of Antwerp and domestic freight also grew. However with regard to the competitive position of the port of Antwerp in the Hamburg – Le Havre range, a cyclical decline was recorded in liquid bulk traffic and a structural decline in dry bulk traffic, even though the port remains the European leader for non-containerised general cargo39 with a 25 p.c. market share for the range. Antwerp, just like Hamburg, is gaining ground in container traffic, at the expense of the leader in this field, Rotterdam. But the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam are becoming increasingly complementary with regard to infrastructures. The conditions for achieving synergies are also being examined. To this end, a memorandum has been signed by Belgium and the Netherlands. • Industry In January 2002, Opel expanded with a spare parts unit. The following month, Noord Natie Terminals planned the setting up of a new tank storage terminal for hazardous chemicals to be run by A4S (Antwerp for Storage). On 28 February, the merger between Hessenatie and Noordnatie was completed. At the end of April, the first semi-mobile container scanner was introduced. In the chemicals sector, the BASF group decided to build a factory at Antwerp to manufacture ABS material and in June the same company opened a new factory on its site for the production of SAP, superabsorbent polymer. The construction of combined systems for the production of electricity, industrial gas and steam distribution was confirmed in 2002. Air Liquide, RWE and Electrabel are taking major initiatives to extend their presence and networks in the port area. • Infrastructure A memorandum of understanding was signed on 4 March 2002 with a view to reaching a decision at the end of 2004 on the strategic report on the environmental effects and cost-benefit analysis for the project to deepen the Scheldt. In order to deal with the continued growth in container traffic, it was decided to build Containerdok West, also called Deurganckdok, to the South of Doel on the left bank. In addition, a number of projects were continuing: « Iron Rhine route »40, the development of a second railway line for the port and the opening up of the left bank.

36 Sources: Antwerp Port Authority Annual Report 2002 and Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002. See also website

www.portofantwerp.be. 37 Source: Belgostat online. 38 This ranking does not take account of the traffic between two ports of the same country. 39 See terminology in the glossary in annex 9. 40 This Belgian-Dutch project, which made little progress in 2002, consists of continuing the development of the railway line

linking the port of Antwerp to the German region of the Ruhr and to eastern Europe. Reducing the railway section with 50 kilometres compared to the existing line constitutes the main benefit of this project, together with the fact that the land through which it runs is much flatter than that of its present route.


4.1.2 Value added

TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 2002 (millions of euros)

Sectors (direct effects)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders .................... 431.7 449.8 511.1 485.1 490.0 513.1 489.6 449.8 6.4 4.2 0.6

Cargo handlers ............ 814.4 717.1 805.7 789.1 849.8 794.5 868.1 903.8 12.9 11.0 1.5

Shipping companies .... 241.5 204.1 169.2 120.9 121.3 225.8 140.7 62.6 0.9 - 74.1 - 17.5

Other services.............. 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.2 7.5 9.8 8.4 8.3 0.1 28.6 3.7

Fishing.......................... 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 - 77.6 - 19.3

Shipbuilding and

repair ............................ 23.6 32.3 28.8 34.3 28.7 30.1 28.9 26.4 0.4 11.5 1.6

Other industries............ 56.0 60.9 51.1 42.1 53.6 75.5 91.7 108.0 1.5 92.8 9.8

Public sector ................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total maritime ............ 1,574.5 1,470.5 1,571.2 1,477.8 1,551.3 1,649.2 1,627.6 1,559.0 22.2 - 1.0 - 0.1

Non-maritime cluster

Total wholesale trade... 405.5 401.8 469.9 460.5 583.2 706.1 599.4 772.8 11.0 90.6 9.6

Energy.......................... 157.9 156.3 182.7 145.9 140.2 163.9 199.4 183.9 2.6 16.4 2.2

Oil industry ................... 604.0 685.0 820.4 780.1 736.8 1 096.3 870.0 929.4 13.3 53.9 6.4

Chemicals .................... 1,709.0 1,745.5 1,930.7 1,975.2 1,849.4 2,113.0 2,123.3 2,143.9 30.6 25.4 3.3

Car manufacturing ....... 550.1 584.4 530.6 704.0 559.1 492.1 469.1 488.4 7.0 - 11.2 - 1.7

Electronics ................... 6.3 6.9 8.0 10.3 10.1 13.7 11.9 8.3 0.1 31.4 4.0

Metal-working

industry......................... 67.8 68.6 76.9 71.6 79.1 84.4 93.1 99.9 1.4 47.4 5.7

Food industry ............... 23.3 22.0 27.2 20.6 19.7 35.9 36.7 40.4 0.6 73.7 8.2


Total industry ............... 3,179.3 3,334.6 3,657.3 3,795.8 3,488.3 4,117.2 3,935.6 4,036.2 57.6 27.0 3.5

Other services.............. 138.4 146.4 152.9 193.2 253.7 239.8 291.4 288.4 4.1 108.4 11.1


Public sector ................ 89.9 90.4 81.4 79.0 91.2 90.6 94.7 93.4 1.3 3.9 0.5

Total logistics

services........................ 257.9 262.6 261.1 302.3 386.8 373.3 441.2 435.9 6.2 69.0 7.8

Road transport ............. 70.8 72.8 75.3 78.0 81.6 83.0 82.5 93.1 1.3 31.4 4.0

Other services.............. 71.5 85.8 86.5 84.6 80.9 86.2 103.5 115.9 1.7 62.0 7.1

Total transport.............. 142.4 158.6 161.8 162.6 162.5 169.2 186.0 209.0 3.0 46.8 5.6

Total non-maritime .... 3,985.1 4,157.7 4,550.1 4,721.1 4,620.9 5,365.8 5,162.2 5,453.9 77.8 36.9 4.6

Direct effects .............. 5,559.6 5,628.2 6,121.3 6,198.9 6,172.2 7,015.0 6,789.9 7,012.9 100.0 26.1 3.4

Allocation (p.m.)41 ........ 83.9 80.0 165.2 92.9 80.9 88.0 84.5 76.5 - - 8.8 - 1.3

Source: NBB.

41 The results of the maritime companies located outside the port area are recorded under the title « Allocation (p.m.) ». These

results have already been taken into account in the direct effects' figures and are mentioned here for the record. For the methodology, see chapter 2 and annex 1.


TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (millions of euros)

Sectors: indirect effects42

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime ..... 2,267.6 2,192.8 2,511.6 2,086.7 2,228.7 2,152.0 2,126.9 2,031.8 29.1 - 10.4 - 1.6

Total non-maritime ............... 3,320.9 3,541.1 3,812.6 4,126.8 4,352.9 4,461.7 4,543.4 4,950.8 70.9 49.1 5.9

Indirect effects .... 5,588.4 5,733.9 6,324.2 6,213.6 6,581.5 6,613.7 6,670.3 6,982.6 100.0 24.9 3.2

Total value added.................... 11,148.0 11,362.1 12,445.5 12,412.5 12,753.7 13,628.7 13,460.1 13,995.5 - 25.5 3.3

Source: BNB.

General changes From 1995 to 2002, the direct VA for the port of Antwerp (including allocation) grew by 26.1 p.c., with an annual average of 3.4 p.c. (table 7). This figure reaches 25.5 p.c. and 3.3 p.c. as an annual average if indirect VA is included. The rise in total VA is therefore due both to the companies in the sample and to subcontracting operations, in very similar proportions. The largest increase in total VA (direct, including allocation, and indirect) was recorded in 1997 with growth of 9.5 p.c. The strongest growth in direct VA (+ 13.7 p.c.) was seen in 2000. The sharpest drop was recorded in 2001 with a fall of 3.2 p.c. in direct VA, i.e. 1.2 p.c. in total. A feature of the year 2002 was the return to growth in the port of Antwerp where the total VA rose by 4.0 p.c. while direct VA was up by 3.3 p.c. In the same year, direct VA in the port of Antwerp amounted to 7.0 billion euro and 14.0 billion euro if indirect effects are added. From the point of view of production, the ratio of indirect VA to direct VA reached a peak in 1999 at 106.6 p.c., due to the growth seen particularly in production by shipping companies, a sector strongly dependent on external labour. This ratio fell back again in 2000 (drop in production in the car manufacturing) and amounted to 99.6 p.c. in 2002. Changes by cluster in direct effects The maritime cluster occupies an important position in the direct VA at the port of Antwerp (24.7 p.c. on average over the period 1995 - 2002). Over this period, the sharpest drop was recorded in 1996 with a fall of 6.6 p.c. The non-maritime industry segment represents the largest percentage of production at the port of Antwerp (58.5 p.c.); its most significant rise was recorded in 2000 (+ 18.0 p.c.). The VA for this segment improved on average by 3.5 p.c. per annum from 1995 to 2002. The non-maritime wholesale trade segment improved by 9.6 p.c. per annum for direct VA and recorded its largest increase in 1999 (+ 26.7 p.c.) and in 2002 (+ 28.9 p.c.). The VA for the non-maritime logistics services and transport segments rose on average by 7.8 p.c. and 5.6 p.c. per annum respectively. In 2002, the wholesale trade and transport segments recorded their greatest improvements with rises in VA of 28.9 p.c. and 12.4 p.c. respectively. The reasons for this are touched on below. Changes by sector in direct effects Chemicals (30.9 p.c. on average of the VA in the port) and, to a lesser extent, the car manufacturing, other services, cargo handling, oil industry and shipping agents and forwarders constitute the main part of the VA produced at the port of Antwerp (table 7). The most significant rise was recorded in 1997 (+ 8.8 p.c.), a year in which chemicals production saw its second strongest growth (+ 10.6 p.c.). The year 2002 was favourable for most of the sectors. At the port of Antwerp, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct VA in the main sectors were as follows: • Chemicals gained 1.0 p.c. to reach 2.1 billion euro. In 2002, this rise was explained in part by the increase of

11 p.c. in production at Degussa, which brought the new Oxeno unit into service for dibutene production. In addition, BASF opened a new factory on its site for the production of the super absorbent polymer, SAP, and decided to build a factory to manufacture ABS materials: this was in spite of a slight fall in production (- 0.3 p.c. the same year); Air Liquide, whose production level remained exactly the same as in 2001, announced the construction of a new wet goods factory on BASF land;

42 The breakdown of the indirect effects by sector for the period 1995 - 1999 can be found in annex 5 (table 49).


• The car manufacturing rose by 4.1 p.c. to reach 488 million euro. Opel Belgium, whose production grew in the same year by 9 p.c., expanded to include a spare parts unit;

• The other services (including wholesale trade) increased by 18.2 p.c., to reach almost the 1.2 billion euro mark;

• Cargo handling recorded a rise of 4.1 p.c., producing a total of almost 904 million euro. At the end of February, Hessenatie, whose VA was estimated at 146 million euro, merged with Noordnatie Group to create the largest group in this sector; in addition, a new tank terminal for storage of hazardous chemicals was taken on by A4S, on the initiative of Noordnatie Terminals; Havenbedrijf Antwerpen ordered an automatic dredging crane; LBC, whose production grew by 1.6 p.c. in 2002, decided on the construction of a new storage terminal;

• The oil industry gained 6.8 p.c. to reach 929 million euro: production improved by 47.0 p.c. for Exxon Mobil Petroleum & Chemical, whose VA reached 431 million euro following the takeover of the Diegem branch, and by 38.0 p.c. for Petroplus Refining Antwerp, whose VA amounted to some 17 million euro;

• The shipping agents and forwarders showed a fall of 8.1 p.c., declining to 450 million euro. Large companies such as Transaf, whose VA was worth 2.5 million euro, were taken over; however, production at StoraEnso Transport and Distribution increased by 19 p.c. (VA of 2.7 million euro in 2002); production at Katoen Natie improved by 20 p.c. in the course of the same year.

VA Top 10 at the port of Antwerp in 2002 Kuwait Petroleum Belgium, a company established in more than one location and belonging to the oil sector, is in second place in this list. In addition, starting with this issue, Havenbedrijf van Antwerpen has been included in the cargo handling sector because of its NACE classification (NACE-Bel code 63.220). It is therefore included in this table.

TABLE 8 VA TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF ANTWERP IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sectors

Value added

1 B.A.S.F. ANTWERPEN Chemicals 851.1

2 KUWAIT PETROLEUM-BELGIUM Other services 509.8

3 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL BELGIUM Chemicals 430.7

4 OPEL BELGIUM Car manufacturing 366.1

5 BAYER ANTWERPEN Chemicals 315.1

6 BELGIAN REFINING CORPORATION Oil industry 237.9

7 FINA RAFFINADERIJ ANTWERPEN Oil industry 236.2

8 HESSE NOORD NATIE Cargo handliers 196.2

9 ELECTRABEL Energy 183.9

10 HAVENBEDRIJF VAN ANTWERPEN Cargo handlers 182.5

Total 3,509.3

Source: NBB.


4.1.3 Salaried employment

TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 2002 (FTE)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders ...................... 6,832 5,675 6,082 5,868 5,980 6,322 5,969 6,536 10.8 - 4.3 - 0.6

Cargo handlers .............. 12,900 14,059 13,666 13,425 13,093 12,910 13,588 12,604 20.8 - 2.3 - 0.3

Shipping companies ...... 1,967 1,781 1,428 1,246 1,154 1,031 663 573 0.9 - 70.9 - 16.2

Other services................ 116 91 76 96 117 135 123 129 0.2 11.2 1.5

Fishing............................ 19 0 0 0 5 4 4 4 0.0 - 81.5 - 21.4

Shipbuilding and

repair .............................. 853 741 615 697 583 576 545 499 0.8 - 41.5 - 7.4

Other industries.............. 675 580 512 540 519 605 792 811 1.3 20.1 2.7

Public sector .................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - -

Total maritime .............. 23,363 22,928 22,379 21,871 21,451 21,584 21,685 21,156 34.9 - 9.4 - 1.4


Total wholesale trade..... 2,597 2,266 2,456 2,446 2,455 2,356 2,559 2,654 4.4 2.2 0.3

Energy............................ 1,173 1,193 1,197 1,051 1,029 983 1,194 1,119 1.8 - 4.6 - 0.7

Oil industry ..................... 2,673 2,616 2,659 2,616 2,672 2,804 2,780 3,145 5.2 17.7 2.4

Chemicals ...................... 11,869 12,168 12,001 11,782 11,431 11,866 12,129 11,577 19.1 - 2.5 - 0.4

Car manufacturing ......... 8,976 9,208 9,415 9,377 8,360 8,124 7,883 7,208 11.9 - 19.7 - 3.1

Electronics ..................... 121 123 138 166 190 179 141 69 0.1 - 43.4 - 7.8

Metal-working industry... 1,757 1,763 1,570 1,433 1,640 1,648 1,769 1,776 2.9 1.1 0.2

Food industry ................. 418 431 461 335 304 624 676 648 1.1 55.1 6.5

Other industries.............. 1,067 1,167 1,342 1,448 1,515 1,816 2,102 2,165 3.6 102.9 10.6

Total industry ................. 28,053 28,668 28,781 28,208 27,141 28,044 28,673 27,707 45.7 - 1.2 - 0.2

Other services................ 2,010 1,985 2,072 2,283 2,426 2,808 3,296 3,028 5.0 50.6 6.0

Other industries.............. 157 123 125 204 319 310 444 466 0.8 196.6 16.8

Public sector .................. 2,212 2,174 2,040 2,003 2,183 2,136 2,113 2,104 3.5 - 4.9 - 0.7

Total logistics services... 4,379 4,282 4,237 4,491 4,928 5,253 5,853 5,597 9.2 27.8 3.6

Road transport ............... 1,327 1,231 1,233 1,237 1,307 1,294 1,249 1,304 2.2 - 1.7 - 0.2

Other services................ 1,797 1,711 2,005 1,829 1,788 2,034 2,307 2,145 3.5 19.3 2.6

Total transport................ 3,124 2,942 3,238 3,065 3,095 3,328 3,556 3,449 5.7 10.4 1.4

Total non-maritime ...... 38,152 38,157 38,713 38,210 37,620 38,981 40,641 39,408 65.1 3.3 0.5

Direct effects ................ 61,515 61,085 61,092 60,081 59,071 60,564 62,326 60,563 100.0 - 1.5 - 0.2

Allocation (p.m.)............. 1,897 1,489 1,388 1,385 1,294 1,265 1,253 1,092 - - 42.4 - 7.6

Source: NBB.


TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (FTE)

Sectors: Indirect effects43

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime ............. 25,335 25,698 26,683 26,238 24,059 26,242 24,512 21,214 32.0 - 16.3 - 2.5

Total non-maritime ..... 40,222 41,638 41,707 43,128 45,387 45,243 48,004 45,050 68.0 12.0 1.6

Indirects effects .......... 65,557 67,335 68,390 69,366 69,446 71,486 72,516 66,263 100.0 1.1 0.2

Total employment ....... 127,072 128,420 129,482 129,447 128,517 132,050 134,842 126,827 - - 0.2 0.0

Source: NBB.

General changes From 1995 to 2002, direct employment in the Antwerp port area declined slightly (- 1.5 p.c. – see table 9), which is an annual average drop of 0.2 p.c. Over the same period, total employment (direct, including allocation and indirect) was stable, as the slight fall in direct employment was compensated for by the improvement in indirect employment (+ 0.2 p.c. per annum on average). The trend to outsourcing was particularly marked in 2000, when indirect employment increased by 2.9 p.c. and total employment by 2.7 p.c. Over the period in question, the record year for direct employment for the port was 2001, with an increase of 2.9 p.c. compared to the year 2000. In 2002 the worst result in terms of change of total employment (- 5.9 p.c.) was recorded: direct employment fell by 2.8 p.c. and indirect employment by 8.6 p.c. With regard to subcontracting in terms of employment, the ratio between indirect employment and direct employment reached a peak in 2000 (118.0 p.c.), i.e. one year after this trend was seen at aggregated level. This ratio also went above 115 p.c. from 1999 to 2001 and then fell back to 109.4 p.c. in 2002. This drop in indirect employment was attributable particularly to the decline in employment in the car manufacturing and shipowner sectors, which are heavily dependent on external manpower. Changes by cluster in direct effects The maritime cluster and the non-maritime industry segment are by far the best represented in the port of Antwerp (table 9). The strongest improvement recorded for employment was in 2001 (+ 2.9 p.c.). Employment then peaked with 62,326 FTE, of which 21,685 FTE for the maritime cluster and 28,673 FTE for the industry segment. The logistics services segment was the one with the strongest growth in terms of employment from 1995 to 2002 (+ 27.8 p.c., i.e. + 3.6 p.c. on average per annum). The year 2002 was marked by the fall already mentioned, which was very pronounced in maritime and industrial companies. Changes by sector in direct effects The largest proportion of employment associated with the port of Antwerp relates to the cargo handling and chemicals sectors (21.8 and 19.5 p.c. respectively of the direct employment at the port on average over the period) and, to a lesser extent, to those of the car manufacturing, shipping agents and forwarders, other services and other industries. The significant creation of jobs noted in 2000 was partly attributable to a recovery in chemicals (+ 3.8 p.c. of employment) and the continuing recruitment of staff in the other services and by shipping agents and forwarders. Employment at the port of Antwerp was at its highest in 2001, especially in chemicals, where it reached 12,129 FTE and in cargo handling 13,588 FTE. At the port of Antwerp, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct employment in the main sectors were as follows:

• Cargo handling lost 7.2 p.c. of its direct employment, recording the sharpest fall over this period, down to 12,604 FTE. There was large-scale restructuring in this sector, especially in the « Naties »;

• Employment in chemicals fell by 4.5 p.c. and dropped back to 11,577 FTE. In spite of investments which were in progress or scheduled, this highly competitive sector had to restructure in 2002; this applied particularly to Monsanto Europe, which shed 128 jobs, and to a lesser extent to 3M Belgium and Bayer Antwerpen;



• The car manufacturing also showed its most significant fall after that recorded in 1999, i.e. - 8.6 p.c., with employment in this sector dropping to 7,208 FTE. Most of the companies in this sector shed jobs, notably GM Automotive Services Belgium;

• The shipping agents and forwarders sector was one of the rare exceptions which managed to increase employment (+ 9.5 p.c.) to reach, after a gloomy 2001, 6,536 FTE in total. The Improvement in VA at StoraEnso and Katoen Natie Bulk Terminals led, among other things, to staff being taken on again in this sector.

Employment Top 10 at the port of Antwerp in 2002 As a change from previous issues, Havenbedrijf van Antwerpen is added and will be classified in the cargo handling sector and SNCB will now for the first time be considered as part of the other services sector and no longer as a public service company.

TABLE 10 EMPLOYMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF ANTWERP IN 2002 (FTE)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Employment

1 OPEL BELGIUM Car manufacturing 5,204

2 B.A.S.F. ANTWERPEN Chemicals 3,629

3 HESSE NOORD NATIE * Cargo handlers 2,642

4 BAYER ANTWERPEN Chemicals 2,412

5 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public sector 2,104

6 SNCB – NMBS Other services 1,858

7 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL BELGIUM Chemicals 1,763

8 HAVENBEDRIJF VAN ANTWERPEN Cargo handlers 1,669

9 DEGUSSA ANTWERPEN Chemicals 1,129

10 ELECTRABEL Energy 1,119

Total 23,529

Source: NBB.

*Employment of dockers (C.E.P.A. here) has been distributed among these companies in the cargo handling sector.

4.1.4 Investment General changes Investment in the port of Antwerp itself has increased on average by 4.2 p.c. per annum (table 11). The best year is still 2001 with almost 1.6 billion euro invested in the port area. The year 2000 was the one which showed the strongest growth (+ 30.6 p.c. – including allocated amounts). Compared to the preceding year, 2002 recorded a drop of 5.4 p.c. with a total of a little more than 1.5 billion euro (1,514.8 million euro of which 33.5 million are the result of allocation), the most significant decline for the period from 1995 to 2002 being recorded in 1999 with a drop of 17.9 p.c. in total. Changes by cluster Concerning the total investment associated with the port of Antwerp, the maritime cluster and industry dominate equally, their share of the total being 29.8 p.c. and 51.2 p.c. respectively and their growth 5.9 p.c. and 1.8 p.c. as an annual average. In all respects, the year 1999 was unfavourable and the maritime cluster showed the largest drop, down by 51.9 p.c. Investment associated with the port of Antwerp was at its highest level in 2001 (1.6 billion euro in total), following two successive increases of 30.6 p.c. in 2000 and 17.1 p.c. in 2001. But the year 2002 stands out due to a drop largely attributable to the decline noted in industry and to a lesser extent in logistics services after 2001, which was quite favourable for these two segments.


TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN INVESTMENT AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 2002 (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders ...................... 60.1 52.9 61.6 110.4 59.8 77.0 84.3 70.2 4.6 16.9 2.3 Cargo handlers............... 144.2 176.9 264.2 181.1 115.9 157.7 262.2 223.8 14.8 55.2 6.5 Shipping companies....... 78.7 119.6 41.3 221.4 41.8 96.0 44.0 65.2 4.3 - 17.1 - 2.6 Other services ................ 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 2.1 2.0 1.4 2.1 0.1 211.2 17.6 Fishing ............................ 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 - 71.0 - 16.2 Shipbuilding and repair .............................. 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.7 3.2 3.4 2.4 0.2 37.6 4.7 Other industries .............. 15.9 37.6 29.9 18.2 34.9 14.9 24.8 87.2 5.8 448.5 27.5 Public sector................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Total maritime............... 301.6 390.1 399.8 533.9 256.6 351.1 420.2 451.0 29.8 49.5 5.9


Total wholesale trade ..... 31.8 33.7 50.5 39.8 52.3 38.7 49.3 59.7 3.9 87.9 9.4 Energy ............................ 13.7 32.8 13.1 17.6 18.9 17.1 25.9 6.4 0.4 - 53.3 - 10.3 Oil industry ..................... 111.6 63.8 80.7 126.0 166.2 169.7 98.0 109.0 7.2 - 2.3 - 0.3 Chemicals....................... 406.5 421.7 326.3 307.6 306.6 485.7 704.2 551.1 36.4 35.6 4.4 Car manufacturing.......... 134.1 140.8 245.0 59.3 37.1 41.7 23.8 72.6 4.8 - 45.8 - 8.4 Electronics...................... 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 2.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 Metal-working industry ... 3.8 3.9 1.9 4.8 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 0.2 - 1.3 - 0.2 Food industry.................. 3.6 6.7 7.5 6.2 7.8 6.2 6.5 7.7 0.5 113.8 11.5 Other industries .............. 11.7 6.1 14.9 6.7 13.1 14.1 34.7 24.6 1.6 111.3 11.3 Total industry.................. 685.2 676.1 689.5 528.6 553.8 742.3 897.0 775.5 51.2 13.2 1.8 Other services ................ 23.7 36.5 28.0 33.8 54.7 76.3 68.6 55.8 3.7 135.6 13.0 Other industries .............. 6.9 12.8 4.9 13.2 12.7 29.5 47.3 14.6 1.0 112.0 11.3 Public sector................... 36.7 55.1 30.5 60.7 48.8 46.7 46.8 69.9 4.6 90.4 9.6 Total logistics services ... 67.2 104.4 63.4 107.7 116.2 152.5 162.8 140.2 9.3 108.5 11.1 Road transport................ 14.0 14.4 25.2 15.5 19.2 15.9 16.1 9.9 0.7 - 28.9 - 4.8 Other services ................ 39.8 53.4 52.2 50.1 49.4 67.5 56.3 78.5 5.2 97.3 10.2 Total transport ................ 53.7 67.8 77.4 65.7 68.6 83.4 72.4 88.4 5.8 64.5 7.4

Total non-maritime....... 837.9 882.0 880.8 741.8 791.0 1,016.8 1,181.5 1,063.8 70.2 27.0 3.5

Direct effects................. 1,139.5 1,272.1 1,280.6 1,275.7 1,047.6 1,367.9 1,601.6 1,514.8 100.0 32.9 4.2

Allocation (p.m.) ............. 41.3 40.3 56.0 63.9 35.6 46.6 42.2 33.5 - - 18.8 - 2.9

Source: NBB.

Changes by sector The sector in which investment at the port of Antwerp was at its highest level was chemicals (table 11). This indeed accounted for 36.4 p.c. of the total amount invested in 2002. Cargo handling and the other services also represented a significant share. Then came the oil industry, the shipping companies, shipping agents and forwarders, the car manufacturing and the other industries. The sharpest drop in total investments in the port of Antwerp was recorded in 1999, followed by a recovery in the next two years. This decline was striking with regard to shipping companies, cargo handling firms, shipping agents and forwarders and in the car manufacturing, with investments falling by 81.1, 36.0, 45.8 and 37.4 p.c. respectively. In 2000, investment in chemicals rose by 58.4 p.c. This trend continued the following year (+ 45.0 p.c.) with the total amount of investment in chemicals reaching a record level of 704.2 million euro. In 2002, the total amount invested in the port of Antwerp registered a fall. At the port of Antwerp, the major changes recorded in 2002 for investment in the main sectors were as follows: • Chemicals showed a drop of 21.7 p.c. after two outstanding years. The amount of investment was

551.1 million euro. BASF announced the deferment of its investment plan for 150 million euro for the extension of its cracking unit; investment was down very sharply at 3M, Solvay and Bayer;

• Investment in the cargo handling sector fell by 14.6 p.c. to 223.8 million euro. Rationalisation in this sector continued with the merger of Hessenatie and Noord Natie; investment also decreased significantly at Antwerp


Distribution and Product Operations and Belgian New Fruit Wharf. Havenbedrijf Antwerpen, Hesse-Noord Natie and P&O Ports remained the largest investors in this sector in the port of Antwerp;

• In other services investment rose by 11.6 p.c. to 196.1 million euro. SNCB invested large amounts in the Main Hub, an important container terminal on the right bank. The port of Antwerp is the best served in Europe with regard to access by rail;

• Investments made in the oil industry rose by 11.3 p.c. to 109.0 million euro. In 2002 Petroplus Refining Antwerp invested in a desulphurisation unit producing ULSD (Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel), an automotive fuel which satisfies the new EU environmental standards;

• While investment by shipping companies was in decline in 2001, it rebounded in 2002 recording quite a substantial rise for this sector, with an increase of 48.1 p.c., to 65.2 million euro;

• After 2001, during which major building work was completed (i.e. putting into operation of a large logistics platform by Katoen Natie), the shipping agents and forwarders showed a fall of 16.7 p.c. in their investment to 70.2 million euro in 2002;

• The public services invested 69.9 million euro in that year, i.e. 49.3 p.c. more than in 2001. In addition, more than 87 p.c. of public investment was dedicated that year to the construction of the Deurganckdok.

Investment Top 10 at the port of Antwerp in 2002 Investment information is very volatile and it is difficult to draw comparisons between one year and another for this type of classification. However it should be noted that BASF held its position as the largest investor at the port of Antwerp.

TABLE 12 INVESTMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF ANTWERP IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Investments

1 B.A.S.F. ANTWERPEN Chemicals 152.0

2 HAVENBEDRIJF VAN ANTWERPEN Cargo handlers 85.2

3 DREDGING INTERNATIONAL Other industries 83.2

4 FINA ANTWERP OLEFINS Chemicals 81.3

5 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public sector 69.9

6 ATOFINA ANTWERPEN Chemicals 66.2

7 DEGUSSA ANTWERPEN Chemicals 59.6

8 OPEL BELGIUM Car manufacturing 52.9

9 BAYER ANTWERPEN Chemicals 43.6

10 SAFMARINE CONTAINER LINES Shipping companies 40.3

Total

734.3

Source: NBB.


4.1.5 Financial ratios (private companies) By cluster

TABLE 13 RATIOS BY CLUSTER

Clusters



Solvency (in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002 2000

2001

2002

2000 2001

2002

Maritime cluster................. 8.3 2.4 5.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 33.9 35.7 40.5


Wholesale trade............... - 1.7 5.0 - 3.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 24.3 25.9 24.3

Industry ............................ 11.5 5.1 14.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 29.1 32.7 31.8

Logistics services ............ 2.6 3.8 3.3 4.0 5.0 6.1 80.7 82.3 85.2

Transport ......................... - 6.5 - 7.6 - 15.5 0.9 1.0 0.9 33.6 31.4 25.9

Weighted average ............. 5.3 3.8 7.4 1.2 1.4 0.9 48.3 50.9 47.4

Source: NBB.

• Of the clusters shown in table 13, it is the industry segment which produced the best result with regard to

profitability (return on equity), with the sectors benefiting most widely in 2002 shown in table 14. On the other hand, margins were reduced further in the transport segment, which showed a significant fall in its financial profitability. Helped by industry's excellent result, the average profitability of companies attached to the port of Antwerp rose from 3.8 p.c. in 2001 to 7.4 p.c. in 2002;

• The liquidity of companies at the port of Antwerp fell in 2002, a trend largely attributable to the industry segment, whose ratio was halved. The average net working capital for industry therefore produced negative values. Table 14 presents some special circumstances which explain this phenomenon. The other segments did not exhibit similar falls. With regard to logistics services (coordination centres here), whose liquidity is by far the highest, the capacity to honour short-term commitments continued to rise;

• The solvency of the Antwerp companies in the study worsened slightly in 2002: a marginal decline was observed in industry, in addition to those noted in wholesale trade and transport. The trend was moderated by an improvement in this ratio in the maritime cluster and logistics services.

By sector

• The significant rise in profitability of companies dependent on the port of Antwerp is attributable particularly to the industry segment (table 13). The most remarkable rises were recorded in the chemicals and energy industries and, to a lesser extent, the food industry. It was in fact in 2002 that chemical companies, such as 3M Belgium and Borealis Polymers, started to see significant profits again, of 9.8 and 30.9 million euro respectively. For the maritime cluster, the rise was in large part attributable to the shipping agents and forwarders;

• The decline in liquidity in 2002, which was particularly noticeable in industry, resulted from a sharp drop in this ratio in the oil industry. This is explained by a sharp rise in Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical's short-term debts (takeover of Exxon Diegem), which in 2002 exceeded the restricted current assets. Production by this company also increased sharply in the course of the year, helped by the good results of 2001. Note should also be taken in this industry of the investment agreed with Petroplus Refining Antwerp (transfer of current assets to fixed assets). The car manufacturing and the other industries did not exhibit any significant decline;

• With regard to solvency, the slight decline observed in 2002 in industry was seen mainly in the chemicals and car manufacturing industries. In the former sector, for example, the solvency ratio of Atofina Antwerpen fell from 13.1 to 10.9 p.c. and Speciality Polymers Antwerp from 44.4 to 35.9 p.c. For the first company, this related to a drop in its equity capital (from 34.1 million euro in 2001 to 27.6 million euro in 2002) in the course of this year in which it invested 67.6 million euro in new plant. For the second company, there was a significant increase in short-term debt (which rose in one year from 25.8 to 36.4 million euro) due to fixed assets under construction and advance payments made which increased from 4.5 to 22.7 million euro. In the car manufacturing it was G.M. Automotive Services and Opel


Belgium, in the case of the latter following an increase in its contingency and loss provision, which showed the most significant falls.

TABLE 14 RATIOS BY SECTOR

Sectors



Solvency (in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Shipping agents and forwarders 10.0 12.2 21.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 24.8 24.9 25.2

Cargo handlers .......................... 9.7 2.4 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.9 43.1 46.2 47.8

Shipping companies .................. 7.0 - 2.8 4.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 32.4 30.0 46.5

Road transport ........................... 2.2 10.8 6.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 18.9 23.3 24.6

Other services............................ 2.3 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.1 74.3 75.9 77.5

Energy........................................ 19.0 17.4 21.6 0.7 0.9 1.5 42.2 39.1 38.5

Oil industry ................................. 39.3 29.4 22.9 0.7 0.7 0.1 15.3 14.1 29.0

Chemicals .................................. 6.4 1.2 5.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 33.8 38.2 36.0

Shipbuilding and repair .............. 9.6 18.0 - 11.7 1.1 1.2 1.2 18.6 23.3 19.7

Car manufacturing ..................... 2.8 11.8 - 1.8 0.6 1.2 1.1 14.5 16.7 14.4

Electronics ................................. - 4.9 - 9.7 8.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 7.1 9.9 11.0

Metal-working industry............... 13.2 3.9 - 7.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 21.6 22.7 22.2

Fishing ....................................... 8.1 - 5.0 - 10.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 32.5 35.3 36.0

Food industry ............................. - 3.9 - 15.3 12.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 27.9 28.5 33.2

Other industries ......................... 5.6 6.4 5.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 38.9 35.5 34.0

Public sector .............................. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Weighted average .................... 5.3 3.8 7.4 1.2 1.4 0.9 48.3 50.9 47.4

Source: NBB.

4.1.6 Cargo traffic at the port of Antwerp in 2002 Summary

Table 15 Antwerp (thousands of tonnes)

Unloaded

Loaded

2002 total

2001- 2002 change (in p.c.)

2002 share (in p.c.)

Containers................ 21,455 31,562 53,017 14.2 40.3

Roll-on/roll-off........... 2,906 2,931 5,837 - 2.6 4.4

Other general cargo. 6,001 8,482 14,483 - 9.1 11.0

Liquid bulk................ 22,885 9,110 31,995 - 7.1 24.3

Dry bulk.................... 19,348 6,950 26,298 - 3.6 20.0

Total......................... 72,595 59,035 131,630 + 1.2 100.0

Source: Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002.

From 1998 to 2002, traffic at Antwerp increased on average by 2.5 p.c. per annum. In 2002, like it was for the VA at the port (see above), good figures were recorded in line with those of 2000. With an absolute record of 131.6 million tonnes for transhipment of goods (a figure which was topped again in 2003) it passed the 130 million tonne mark for the third consecutive year. In spite of falls recorded in bulk traffic, particularly in crude oil, oil derivatives, general cargo and Ro-Ro, container traffic continued to grow in 2002. This year also saw a growth of 14.2 p.c. (table 15), higher than that recorded the preceding year (+ 4.2 p.c.). The trend in transhipment of non-ferrous metals (+ 17.7 p.c.), fruit (+ 4.6 p.c.) and rolling material (+ 12.8 p.c.) is also rising. For those interested additional information on cargo traffic at the port of Antwerp in 2002 is presented in table 66 of annex 8, by categories of goods.


4.2 Port of Ghent

4.2.1 Significant facts in 200244 • Context Of the four ports under review, Ghent is the one at which the number of businesses increased most from 1995 to 2002 (+ 31.7 p.c., while the average for all the ports was + 15.9 p.c.). Due to the slowdown in growth, 2002 got off to a slow start in the port of Ghent and traffic picked up only gradually. The event of the year was without doubt the putting into operation on 9 December of the IPG (Intermodaal Platform Gent). This intermodal platform gave the port a large capability for handling and transporting containers via the inland water network to Antwerp, Rotterdam and the Rhine basin. These new facilities constitute an important asset for Ghent because they offer a lasting alternative to road transport. Generally speaking, the year 2002 was relatively positive for the port of Ghent which handled almost 24 million tonnes of goods and was able to maintain its transhipment volume and even slightly increase it in comparison to the preceding year. The most significant increase was recorded for dry bulk traffic with a rise of 10.2 p.c. compared to 2001. This activity was also supported by the emergence of new freight categories as peat and fish oil, and also by higher volumes of fruit juices and molasses. A marked fall was however recorded for the general cargo segment. This development seemed to become general, to the benefit of container traffic. • Industry On 22 March 2002 a new terminal was inaugurated on the Peltracom site for the transhipment, storage and handling of peat. In the car manufacturing, Frans Maas Automotive Belgium began operations and Volvo Cars Gent built an external warehouse. IPG, a joint venture between Rhinecontainer, a company operating on inland waterways, and Stukwerkers, the goods handler, came on stream in December. The expected increase in traffic as a result of this platform is on average 165,000 tonnes per annum: the platform will act as a hub with the capability to open up the hinterland further and thereby open up the port, particularly by facilitating links with the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam. • Infrastructure The largest infrastructure development site of the year is the expansion of the Kluizendok, with, in particular, the installation of additional roads at its entrance. Operations to remove asbestos here began in July and major dredging work was carried out the following month. All the projects undertaken at Kluizendok should in future generate additional traffic of 1.6 million tonnes. An invitation to tender was issued on 29 August for the new maintenance plan for the port, highlighting the urgent need to develop the quays, port roads, etc. The aim of these projects is to improve the port's accessibility, which continues to cause problems, especially for the metal-working company Sidmar, the largest on the site: this company is still somewhat disadvantaged in comparison with three other maritime establishments of the Arcelor group (Dunkirk, Fos and Gijon). Although the productivity and layout of the site compensate for this handicap, the development of a new capesize45 sea lock at Terneuzen would, according to some sources, be an effective solution to facilitate access by sea. IPG enables progress to be made with regard to inland traffic.

44 Sources: Havenbedrijf Gent GAB Annual Report 2002 and Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002. 45 The term capesize denotes the capacity of a lock which can accommodate ships (mainly carrying solid bulk) of over

80,000 dwt.


4.2.2 Value added

TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 2002 (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change 1995 - 2002

(in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders ...................... 27.7 22.3 40.5 42.1 39.2 45.6 56.2 61.1 2.1 120.2 11.9

Cargo handlers .............. 108.2 113.8 116.0 130.6 138.6 129.3 122.6 127.1 4.3 17.5 2.3

Shipping companies ...... 11.3 8.5 8.2 9.7 23.6 10.3 13.4 13.5 0.5 19.5 2.6

Other services................ 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.5 0.1 43.9 5.3

Fishing............................ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.9 0.1 594.8 31.9

Shipbuilding and

repair .............................. 3.0 2.3 2.7 4.7 3.7 3.6 4.7 4.8 0.2 60.2 7.0

Other industries.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.3 0.1 - -

Public sector .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - -

Total maritime .............. 152.2 148.7 168.6 188.3 206.7 190.6 202.3 214.1 7.3 40.7 5.0


Total wholesale trade..... 564.2 598.4 456.0 614.9 529.1 530.8 616.0 592.5 20.1 5.0 0.7

Energy............................ 239.5 218.9 206.2 113.4 115.6 145.2 169.8 150.1 5.1 - 37.3 - 6.5

Oil industry ..................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 6.1 7.0 0.2 - -

Chemicals ...................... 167.7 177.9 175.5 190.8 181.7 229.9 229.4 221.9 7.5 32.3 4.1

Car manufacturing ......... 476.8 481.3 491.3 545.7 525.7 518.8 511.2 516.2 17.5 8.2 1.1

Electronics ..................... 103.0 160.9 100.5 104.7 99.1 106.6 60.2 58.4 2.0 - 43.3 - 7.8

Metal-working industry... 628.8 609.6 634.8 727.7 657.5 774.8 545.7 725.9 24.7 15.4 2.1

Food industry ................. 56.8 60.1 61.6 59.0 60.8 60.0 72.8 88.5 3.0 55.8 6.5

Other industries.............. 156.5 144.4 150.5 173.1 168.5 176.2 227.5 191.5 6.5 22.4 2.9

Total industry ................. 1,829.1 1,853.0 1,820.5 1,914.4 1,808.8 2,015.6 1,822.7 1,959.4 66.6 7.1 1.0

Other services................ 68.2 67.5 67.1 113.2 49.8 87.1 88.0 97.7 3.3 43.2 5.3

Other industries.............. 6.5 9.5 10.9 12.1 14.3 14.6 9.6 3.8 0.1 - 41.1 - 7.3

Public sector .................. 20.3 20.4 11.3 11.1 11.1 8.8 9.1 10.5 0.4 - 48.1 - 8.9

Total logistics services... 95.0 97.3 89.4 136.4 75.3 110.5 106.6 112.0 3.8 17.9 2.4

Road transport ............... 28.3 24.8 27.4 30.0 31.2 30.3 39.5 38.3 1.3 35.2 4.4

Other services................ 8.7 13.8 18.7 21.4 20.2 20.5 22.7 26.6 0.9 204.2 17.2

Total transport................ 37.1 38.6 46.1 51.4 51.4 50.8 62.2 64.9 2.2 75.1 8.3

Total non-maritime ...... 2,525.4 2,587.3 2,411.9 2,717.1 2,464.6 2,707.6 2,607.6 2,728.8 92.7 8.1 1.1

Direct effects ................ 2,677.6 2,735.9 2,580.5 2,905.4 2,671.3 2,898.1 2,809.9 2,942.9 100.0 9.9 1.4

Allocation (p.m.)............. 6.6 4.9 14.7 7.5 9.8 6.7 14.4 13.9 - 109.6 11.2

Source: NBB.


TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (millions of euros)

Sectors (indirect effects46)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime............... 203.1 203.8 222.2 204.3 243.3 193.4 195.0 217.8 6.3 7.2 1.0

Total non-maritime....... 2,211.9 2,340.0 2,409.1 2,609.2 2,825.3 2,826.3 3,082.1 3,250.0 93.7 46.9 5.7

Indirect effects.............. 2,415.0 2,543.8 2,631.2 2,813.5 3,068.5 3,019.7 3,277.0 3,467.7 100.0 43.6 5.3

Total value added......... 5,092.6 5,279.7 5,211.8 5,718.9 5,739.8 5,917.8 6,087.0 6,410.7 - 25.9 3.3

Source: NBB.

General changes The total VA associated with the port of Ghent grew by 25.9 p.c. from 1995 to 2002, i.e. an increase of 3.3 p.c. on average per annum (table 16). This increase was largely attributable to subcontracting, since the indirect VA increased over the same period by 43.6 p.c. (+ 5.3 p.c. as an annual average), while the direct VA only grew by 9.9 p.c. (+ 1.4 p.c. as an annual average). The largest increases in direct and total VA occurred in 1998 (12.6 p.c. and 9.7 p.c. respectively). 2002 was a positive year for production at Ghent, with the total VA rising by 5.3 p.c. Direct VA for these companies amounted to 2.9 billion euro. Total VA accounted for 6.4 billion euro if indirect effects are included. The ratio of indirect VA to direct VA reached 117.8 p.c. in 2002, which is slightly more than the figure recorded in 1999 (114.9 p.c.), a record year for the ports on average. To explain this high figure, the VA of the Ghent shipping companies was in fact marked in 1999 by high growth: this is a sector which is strongly dependent on subcontracting. After a decline in the trend towards outsourcing seen in 2000, accompanied by a fall in production in the car manufacturing and shipping companies sectors, it seems therefore that the following years were once again marked by an increase in this trend at the port of Ghent. Changes by cluster in direct effects From 1995 to 2002, the direct VA at the port of Ghent rose by 1.4 p.c. on average per annum. The industry and wholesale trade segments accounted for the largest shares of this total (67.6 and 20.3 p.c. respectively). The maritime cluster, the logistics services and transport segments are further down the list. In spite of its minor importance, the transport segment was the one which recorded the largest increase in annual average VA (+ 8.3 p.c.). The wholesale trade segment recorded its largest rise in 1998 (+ 34.9 p.c.) and its sharpest fall the preceding year (- 23.8 p.c.). Industrial production continued to grow and the most marked rise was in 2000 (+ 11.4 p.c.). The largest increase in VA at the port of Ghent (+ 12.6 p.c. in 1998) was due above all to the expansion of the wholesale trade and logistics services segments. 2002 produced a 4.7 p.c. rise in direct VA, while wholesale trade declined by 3.8 p.c., industry gained 7.5 p.c. and the maritime cluster recovered by 5.9 p.c. Changes by sector in direct effects It is the metal-working and car manufacturing industries and the other services which carry the greatest weight in terms of VA at the port of Ghent. The chemicals and energy industries, cargo handling and other industries also contributed, but to a lesser extent. The largest increase in port production at Ghent was recorded in 1998: in that year, the VA of the other services sector saw a major growth (particularly in the wholesale trade, see table 16). After very average years, a recovery began in 2000 in the chemicals and energy industries (+ 26.5 and 25.7 p.c. respectively), partly offset by the fall in cargo handling (- 6.7 p.c.). This growth trend continued into 2002, the second year after 1998 in terms of a rise in direct VA, with a rate of 4.7 p.c. The VA consequently exceeded 2.9 billion euro. At the port of Ghent, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct VA in the main sectors were as follows: • The metal-working industry recorded its highest growth (+ 33.0 p.c.) with VA amounting to 726 million euro.

The Sidmar VA rose by 38 p.c. to reach 616 million euro: the company completed its tests which aimed at more environmentally friendly steel production;

• The VA in the car manufacturing increased by 1.0 p.c., with the direct VA for this sector amounting to 516 million euro. Volvo Cars Gent saw its VA remain identical to that for 2001 (312.8 million euro);



• The VA for the chemicals showed a decline of 3.3 p.c. to 222 million euro. To give only one example, production at Kronos Europe declined by 23.3 p.c., its VA amounting to 26.3 million euro;

• After unfavourable conditions in 1998 and 1999 and a recovery in 2000 and 2001, the VA for the energy industry fell again, by 11.6 p.c. to 150 million euro. Electrabel's VA fell by 7.8 p.c. to reach 121.5 million euro;

• After two consecutive years of fall, the VA for cargo handling recovered by 3.7 p.c. to reach 127 million euro. Euro-Silo's production rose by 10.4 p.c. with its VA reaching 15 million euro;

• The VA of other services fell by 1.3 p.c. to 719 million euro in 2002. VA Top 10 at the port of Ghent in 2002 Compared to the 2001 study, Sidmar, Volvo Cars, TotalFinaElf and Volvo Europa Trucks held their position at the top of this list, in the same order. They were joined by Electrabel, Belgian Shell and BP Belgium, companies established in more than one location, for which the zone considered is the port area in the wider sense.

TABLE 17 VA TOP 10 FOR THE PORT OF GHENT IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Value added

1 SIDMAR Metal-working industry 616.0

2 VOLVO CARS Car manufacturing 312.8

3 TOTALFINAELF BELGIUM Oil industry 242.1

4 VOLVO EUROPA TRUCK Car manufacturing 174.3


6 BELGIAN SHELL Other services 98.8

7 U.C.B. Chemicals 63.7

8 HONDA EUROPE Car manufacturing 49.8

9 STORA ENSO LANGERBRUGGE Other industries 49.1

10 BP BELGIUM Other services 33.5

Total 1,761.5

Source: NBB.



TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 2002 (FTE)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders .................. 505 382 509 544 543 547 634 830 2.9 64.3 7.4

Cargo handlers........... 1,254 1,111 1,210 1,347 1,385 1,335 1,342 1,172 4.1 - 6.5 - 1.0

Shipping companies... 166 98 91 112 306 109 122 137 0.5 - 17.3 - 2.7

Other services ............ 24 23 20 17 20 22 23 38 0.1 57.3 6.7

Fishing ........................ 4 5 6 8 11 8 8 8 0.0 92.5 9.8

Shipbuilding and

repair .......................... 100 55 63 85 75 69 86 81 0.3 - 19.0 - 3.0

Other industries .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 47 0.2 - -

Public sector............... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - -

Total maritime........... 2,053 1,673 1,898 2,112 2,339 2,090 2,265 2,312 8.1 12.6 1.7


Total wholesale trade . 2,841 2,562 2,578 2,565 2,494 2,601 2,782 2,851 10.0 0.3 0.0

Energy ........................ 1,779 1,671 1,350 817 848 871 890 841 3.0 - 52.7 - 10.1

Oil industry ................. 0 0 0 0 0 70 63 56 0.2 - -

Chemicals................... 1,802 1,802 1,773 1,833 1,798 2,040 2,090 1,903 6.7 5.6 0.8

Car manufacturing...... 5,916 6,133 6,222 6,668 6,791 6,532 6,851 6,624 23.2 12.0 1.6

Electronics.................. 1,747 1,542 1,490 1,428 1,395 1,493 1,185 1,099 3.9 - 37.1 - 6.4

Metal-working industry 6,973 6,864 7,090 7,243 7,419 7,505 7,582 7,163 25.1 2.7 0.4

Food industry.............. 498 484 470 476 520 508 673 674 2.4 35.2 4.4

Other industries .......... 2,557 2,496 2,638 2,478 2,427 2,507 2,641 2,562 9.0 0.2 0.0

Total industry.............. 21,272 20,991 21,032 20,944 21,199 21,527 21,975 20,923 73.4 - 1.6 - 0.2

Other services ............ 777 645 600 612 663 918 1,019 1,057 3.7 36.0 4.5

Other industries .......... 117 138 166 193 206 245 215 61 0.2 - 47.6 - 8.8

Public sector............... 301 293 287 294 295 238 244 283 1.0 - 6.0 - 0.9

Total logistics services 1,195 1,076 1,052 1,099 1,164 1,402 1,478 1,401 4.9 17.3 2.3

Road transport............ 448 378 429 449 426 405 530 513 1.8 14.6 2.0

Other services ............ 259 296 418 453 433 456 507 500 1.8 93.1 9.9

Total transport ............ 707 674 847 902 859 861 1,038 1,014 3.6 43.4 5.3

Total non-maritime... 26,015 25,303 25,510 25,509 25,716 26,391 27,272 26,189 91.9 0.7 0.1

Direct effects............. 28,068 26,977 27,408 27,622 28,055 28,482 29,536 28,501 100.0 1.5 0.2

Allocation (p.m.) ......... 163 92 108 129 145 111 188 191 - 17.3 2.3

Source: NBB.


TABLEAU 18 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (FTE)

Sectors: (indirect effects47)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change 1995 - 2002

(in p.c.)


Total maritime .............. 2,231 1,850 2,188 2,519 3,340 2,628 3,126 3,122 9.4 39.9 4.9


Indirect effects ............. 28,613 28,355 28,102 29,469 33,027 32,133 34,259 33,233 100.0 16.1 2.2

Total employment ........ 56,681 55,332 55,511 57,091 61,081 60,615 63,795 61,733 - 8.9 1.2

Source: NBB.

General changes Direct employment in the Ghent port area (including allocation) rose by 1.5 p.c. from 1995 to 2002, i.e. 0.2 p.c. as an annual average (table 18). Total employment (including indirect effects) rose more strongly by 8.9 p.c. over these seven years, i.e. + 1.2 p.c. as an annual average. As with the VA of companies established at Ghent, this rise was due above all to subcontracting, since indirect employment increased over the same period by 16.1 p.c., i.e. 2.2 p.c. as an annual average. The years 1999 and 2001 were marked by the greatest creation of jobs, especially in subcontracting. Indirect employment in those years rose by 12.1 and 6.6 p.c. respectively, while in the same two years direct employment only increased by 1.6 and 3.7 p.c. This difference may be attributed to the increase in employment in sectors which are heavily dependent on subcontracting, such as the metal-working, chemicals and car manufacturing industries. 1999 was the year with the most marked total rise (+ 7.0 p.c.), and 2001 the year with the largest number of jobs (29,536 direct FTE and 63,795 FTE total). As for the port of Antwerp, 2002 was marked by the decline in direct employment (- 3.5 p.c., almost as great as the drop of 3.9 p.c. recorded in 1996) and total employment (- 3.2 p.c.). The ratio of indirect employment to direct employment remained high in 2002. As for the total for the four ports, 1999 showed a record (117.7 p.c.). This ratio then decreased slightly before returning in 2002 to a relatively high level (116.6 p.c.). The drop in indirect employment at that time was due above all to the decline in employment in the chemicals and car manufacturing sectors, which are heavily dependent on subcontracting. But the effect was limited because of the recovery in employment by shipping companies. Changes by cluster in direct effects The industry segment employs the majority of those working in the port, i.e. 75.6 p.c. on average over the period in question. This proportion is only 9.5 and 7.4 p.c. respectively for wholesale trade and the maritime cluster. The largest rise in direct employment (including allocation) was seen in 2001: employment in the maritime cluster increased by 8.4 p.c. and that in industry by 2.1 p.c. Although not as large, logistics services and transport over these seven years recorded their best average rises in direct employment (+ 2.3 and + 5.3 p.c. respectively). In 2002, the decline of 3.5 p.c. in direct employment in the port of Ghent was above all due to the drop seen in industry (- 4.8 p.c.). Changes by sector in direct effects Jobs at the port of Ghent are centred mainly on the metal-working and car manufacturing industries and, to a lesser extent, the other services, the chemicals and other industries. 2001 was an excellent year for employment, with the workforce of the metal-working industry amounting to 7,582 FTE. The same year, employment in the car manufacturing and chemicals industries reached 6,851 and 2,090 FTE respectively. That is when the 2002 decline referred to above started.

47 The breakdown of the indirect effects by sector for the period 1995- 1999 can be found in annex 5 (table 52).


At the port of Ghent, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct employment in the main sectors were as follows: • The metal-working industry lost 5.5 p.c. of jobs to return to a level of 7,163 FTE. Sidmar in particular closed

down some R & D activities and shed numerous jobs (according to the calculations, 480 FTE); • Employment in the car manufacturing declined by 3.3 p.c. to 6,624 FTE. Production at Volvo Cars Gent did

not increase in 2002 and, except for this company which showed good results, the sector was in rather poor shape, which explains an almost general decrease in employment;

• Employment in the chemicals also declined, and it lost 8.9 p.c. of its workforce, which amounts to 1,903 FTE. The drop in activity referred to in point 4.2.2 was the main cause of this;

• Other services (including wholesale trade) were one of the only sectors where employment increased in 2002 (+ 2.7 p.c.). Employment for the sector totalled 4,446 FTE. At BP Belgium, the workforce increased by 45.5 p.c. to reach 182 FTE;

• After a good year in 2001 in terms of employment, the other industries lost 8.1 p.c. of their workforce to 2,670 FTE.

Employment Top 10 at the port of Ghent in 2002 Sidmar, Volvo Cars and Volvo Europa Truck held their positions in the 2001 list. They were joined by Electrabel, a company established in more than one location, and SNCB, which is included in the other services sector.

TABLE 19 EMPLOYMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF GHENT IN 2002 (FTE)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Employment

1 SIDMAR Metal-working industry 5,792

2 VOLVO CARS Car manufacturing 3,831

3 VOLVO EUROPA TRUCK Car manufacturing 2,473

4 ELECTRABEL Energy 740

5 GE POWER CONTROLS BELGIUM Electronics 683

6 HONDA EUROPE Car manufacturing 654

7 STORA ENSO LANGERBRUGGE Other industries 446

8 SNCB – NMBS Other services 419

9 U.C.B. Chemicals 350

10 DENYS Other industries 336

Total 15,724

Source: NBB.


4.2.4 Investment

TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN INVESTMENT AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 2002 (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders ...................... 5.3 2.7 12.3 6.2 6.3 5.3 6.4 6.8 0.8 28.1 3.6 Cargo handlers .............. 31.9 32.1 27.6 36.3 50.5 34.7 31.8 37.0 4.6 15.9 2.1 Shipping companies ...... 2.9 1.1 3.6 6.8 7.7 4.7 6.5 8.2 1.0 184.0 16.1 Other services................ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 - 9.6 - 1.4 Fishing............................ 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 57.3 6.7 Shipbuilding and repair .............................. 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.1 286.5 21.3 Other industries.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 - - Public sector .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Total maritime .............. 40.8 36.6 44.3 50.1 65.1 45.4 46.2 54.0 6.7 32.2 4.1


Total wholesale trade..... 39.9 38.5 40.8 35.9 39.2 49.3 64.1 63.5 7.9 59.4 6.9 Energy............................ 20.8 45.9 14.8 13.7 15.6 15.3 18.7 5.0 0.6 - 76.2 - 18.5 Oil industry ..................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 - - Chemicals ...................... 32.5 17.8 26.3 31.9 34.7 32.9 46.3 38.3 4.7 17.7 2.4 Car manufacturing ......... 52.0 150.6 62.2 116.3 220.2 90.0 77.3 132.6 16.4 155.2 14.3 Electronics ..................... 2.9 3.5 5.1 12.5 8.4 12.3 13.8 9.6 1.2 227.0 18.4 Metal-working industry... 40.9 66.5 115.8 83.2 170.8 244.2 239.5 126.2 15.6 208.7 17.5 Food industry ................. 13.8 11.1 11.9 16.7 27.6 14.3 18.0 18.6 2.3 34.6 4.3 Other industries.............. 40.7 29.9 20.3 19.7 32.8 26.8 53.0 302.5 37.4 643.2 33.2 Total industry ................. 203.6 325.2 256.3 294.0 510.1 437.4 467.0 632.9 78.3 210.8 17.6 Other services................ 6.4 14.1 8.4 9.0 5.6 26.4 24.0 18.5 2.3 188.8 16.4 Other industries.............. 7.3 4.2 2.5 2.8 7.8 8.8 4.0 0.9 0.1 - 88.1 - 26.2 Public sector .................. 20.4 18.6 22.4 19.0 8.9 14.1 10.5 12.5 1.5 - 38.5 - 6.7 Total logistics services... 34.1 36.9 33.4 30.7 22.3 49.3 38.4 31.9 3.9 - 6.4 - 0.9 Road transport ............... 10.3 4.9 4.7 9.4 17.0 7.3 8.0 7.7 1.0 - 25.0 - 4.0 Other services................ 5.7 7.7 10.7 14.3 12.6 15.9 13.0 18.1 2.2 216.0 17.9 Total transport................ 16.0 12.7 15.3 23.7 29.7 23.2 21.0 25.8 3.2 61.0 7.0

Total non-maritime ...... 293.6 413.3 345.7 384.3 601.3 559.2 590.5 754.2 93.3 156.8 14.4

Direct effects ................ 334.5 449.9 390.1 434.4 666.3 604.6 636.6 808.2 100.0 141.6 13.4

Allocation (p.m.)............. 3.1 2.4 4.8 3.9 7.3 4.3 6.8 5.8 - 88.9 9.5

Source: NBB.

General changes Including allocation, investment in the port of Ghent rose on average by 13.4 p.c. per annum (table 20). This increase, the most striking for the four ports under review, was seen especially in 1996, 1999 and 2002, in which investment increased by 34.5, 53.4 and 26.9 p.c. respectively. Falls were recorded only in 1997 and 2000 (- 13.3 and - 9.3 p.c. respectively). 2002, the year in which the intermodal platform was put into operation, was very favourable in terms of investment, which reached a total amount of 802.4 million euro for the port area and 808.2 million euro, including allocation. Changes by cluster The most noteworthy changes in terms of investments occurred in industry (table 20). This segment alone accounted for practically three quarters of the average total amount (and 78.3 p.c. in 2002), well ahead of the maritime cluster and the other non-maritime segments. 1999 was the year of the largest rise in investments associated with Ghent port activity and was also the year in which industrial investments saw their sharpest rise (+ 73.5 p.c.). The following year was marked by a decline in maritime, industrial and transport investment, although logistics services recorded their sharpest rise (+ 121.4 p.c.). In 2002, the second largest increase in total


investments was seen (+ 26.9 p.c.), in spite of several falls: + 16.9 p.c. for the maritime cluster, - 0.8 p.c. in wholesale trade, + 35.5 p.c. in industry, - 17.0 p.c. in logistics services and + 23.2 p.c. in transport. It should be noted that SNCB investments that year reached 1.7 million euro. Changes by sector The development of direct investment in the port of Ghent progressed in two phases: before and after 1999. This year corresponded, as stated above, to the largest recorded rise for the period. In the car manufacturing, metal-working and chemicals industries and cargo handling firms, investment grew by 89.3, 105.4, 8.7 and 38.9 p.c. respectively. After the slack period in 2000 and 2001, an absolute record was achieved in 2002, and the growth figure was the best after 1999. The other industries played a crucial role in this. At the port of Ghent, the major changes recorded in 2002 for investment in the main sectors were as follows:

• The other industries sector soared, the amounts invested compared to the preceding year multiplying by 5.3 to 303.9 million euro. The main reason for this rise was the almost tenfold increase in Stora Enso Langerbrugge investments, which that year reached 287 million euro: this related to the construction of a new paper mill unit, which is part of a machinery's renovation and enlargement project estimated at 500 million euro;

• Investments in the car manufacturing rose by 71.5 p.c. to reach 132.6 million euro. The construction of a warehouse on the Volvo Cars site was one explanation for this development;

• The metal-working industry showed a decline of 47.3 p.c. with investments amounting to 126.2 million euro. The fall was general and affected, among others, Sidmar, Decosteel, Europickling, etc.;

• Investments rose by 16.2 p.c. in cargo handling to reach 37.0 million euro; • Just as in production, investment in chemicals fell by 17.4 p.c. to 38.3 million euro; • The public sector invested 12.5 million euro, or 18.9 p.c. more than in 2001. The Flemish Region injected

large sums into Kluizendok (around 41 p.c. of public investment granted to the port between 1989 and 2002). The grant for this project amounted to 76 p.c. of the total in 2002.

Investment Top 10 at the port of Ghent in 2002 Compared to 2001, Sidmar, Volvo Cars and Stora Enso Langerbrugge stayed at the top of the list, but in reverse order.

TABLE 21 INVESTMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF GHENT IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Investments

1 STORA ENSO LANGERBRUGGE Other industries 287.1

2 VOLVO CARS Car manufacturing 121.6

3 SIDMAR Metal-working industry 95.1

4 HET HAVENBEDRIJF GENT GAB Cargo handlers 23.2

5 DECOSTEEL II Metal-working industry 19.9

6 BP BELGIUM Other services 15.2


8 ALGIST BRUGGEMAN Food industry 10.4

9 VOLVO EUROPA TRUCK Car manufacturing 9.0

10 OLEON Chemicals 8.5

Total 602.6

Source: NBB.




Clusters

Return on equity after tax

(in p.c.)


Solvency

(in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Maritime cluster ............ 0.3 2.0 3.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 48.1 47.2 49.1


Wholesale trade .......... 27.7 3.4 - 7.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 32.6 35.6 35.7

Industry........................ 8.6 1.4 - 7.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 35.0 33.8 30.5

Logistics services ........ 6.6 5.0 - 10.2 1.8 1.8 1.3 70.6 70.7 70.2

Transport ..................... 2.2 1.7 - 10.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 34.2 30.6 28.7

Weighted average ......... 8.9 3.3 - 7.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 47.0 46.2 41.8

Source: NBB.

� A remarkable feature at the port of Ghent is the fact that the net return achieved by companies at the port

turned negative in 2002, which should be seen in terms of an overall negative result in the non-maritime cluster. Table 23 gives further information, particularly for the two most important segments at the port, industry and wholesale trade;

� The slowdown in liquidity continued in 2002. Net working capital turned negative overall. Although this ratio remained constant in maritime companies (the realisable and available assets being equivalent to the short-term liabilities) and industry, an appreciable decline in logistics services was seen, with a lesser decline in the remaining two segments;

� Solvency, which was relatively stable in 2001, declined by more than 4.3 p.c. in the following year. Industry was largely responsible for this result, which is analysed in greater detail in table 23.

By sector � Results in 2001 for the metal-working industry had already been unsatisfactory and this trend became more

acute the following year, when it showed a negative return of - 29.7 p.c. (table 23). The large fall in this ratio is attributable to Sidmar, whose losses peaked in 2002 at 301.1 million euro with a fall in equity capital. These losses arose from a reduction in value of the financial fixed assets following integration of the company into the Arcelor group. Its profitability ratio (return on equity) therefore declined to - 35.6 p.c., while it was still - 9.4 p.c. in 2001. The position of this company, which employed 5,792 workers in 2002 and whose VA was 616.0 million euro, goes a long way towards explaining the negative average profitability of companies at the port of Ghent. This ratio also turned negative for the other industries such as Stora Enso Langerbrugge, whose losses approached 26.6 million euro in 2002 following depreciations generated by large-scale investments made the previous year. It should be noted, even if it is hardly significant, that the oil sector returned to positive territory in terms of profitability, a development due to favourable results at Adpo - Ghent;

� The liquidity of logistics services, and in particular of other services, was marked by a significant decline. Volvo Treasury Europe Coordination Center and Sidmar - Stahlwerke Bremen were two examples of those companies whose debts of up to one year increased in 2002 because of a cash deficit. Net operating capital in the oil industry turned positive again in that year, following the significant fall in Adpo – Ghent's short-term debts;

� In 2002, the decline in solvency affected industry above all, in particular metal-working and electronics industries. In the former, Sidmar saw this ratio decline from 36.4 to 30.4 p.c., mainly due to losses carried forward, which were partly offset by writedowns as part of the integration into the Arcelor group. In the latter, equity capital in GE Power Controls Belgium continued to decrease (own funds negative because of losses carried forward). Although the shipping companies sector was of minor importance at Ghent, its solvency almost quadrupled, particularly following the increase in self-financing capacity of companies such as


Binnenvaart Bulk en Container Transport, whose equity capital rose significantly, mainly due to settlement of trade claims.


Sectors


(in p.c.)


Solvency

(in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Shipping agents and forwarders...................... 9.5 12.1 7.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 23.0 27.5 25.7

Cargo handlers ................................................ - 0.9 0.7 3.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 59.2 58.1 57.7

Shipping companies ........................................ 7.0 3.5 3.0 0.6 0.8 0.9 10.2 10.4 40.9

Road transport ................................................. 10.6 14.2 10.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 24.8 26.0 31.2

Other services.................................................. 9.9 4.7 - 9.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 59.7 58.7 55.4

Energy ............................................................. 19.0 13.3 17.0 0.7 0.9 1.6 42.3 43.8 43.8

Oil industry....................................................... - 54.8 - 20.0 5.7 0.6 0.6 1.1 39.2 41.0 48.2

Chemicals ........................................................ 16.1 15.4 10.0 1.1 1.4 1.3 36.2 45.4 48.6

Shipbuilding and repair.................................... 7.6 12.1 24.2 1.6 1.5 1.7 43.7 43.2 52.5

Car manufacturing ........................................... 2.4 3.3 3.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 30.2 28.1 27.8

Electronics ....................................................... - 10.3 2.7 5.4 1.1 0.8 0.7 15.1 - 5.0 - 10.0

Metal-working industry..................................... 8.0 - 8.3 - 29.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 37.9 35.5 30.5

Fishing ............................................................. 19.8 11.7 - 8.3 1.1 1.2 0.6 25.0 27.8 21.3

Food industry................................................... - 0.4 - 7.6 13.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 29.1 25.3 25.4

Other industries ............................................... 15.2 15.4 - 8.4 1.1 1.2 1.0 31.9 34.4 21.2

Public sector .................................................... n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Weighted average ............................................. 8.9 3.3 - 7.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 47.0 46.2 41.8

Source: NBB.


4.2.6 Cargo traffic at the port of Ghent in 2002 Summary

TABLE 24 GHENT (thousands of tonnes)

Unloaded

Loaded

Total 2002

Change 2001- 2002

(in p.c.)

2002 share

(in p.c.)

Containers................ 67 126 193 28.7 0.9

Roll-on/roll-off........... 672 606 1,278 9,0 5.3

Other general cargo. 735 870 1,605 - 48.4 6.7

Liquid bulk................ 2,443 612 3,055 8.4 12.7

Dry bulk.................... 15,777 2,073 17,850 10.2 74.4

Total......................... 19,694 4,287 23,981 + 2.2 100.0


With slightly fewer than 10,000 ships entering the port in 2002, traffic, which had been relatively stable until then, increased by 2.2 p.c. compared to the preceding year (table 24), i.e. growth was marginally lower, which is explained by a difficult start to the year. Unloading activities accounted for nearly 82.1 p.c. of the 24.0 million tonnes transhipped. Bulk recorded a sharp rise, attributable to the good results in grain shipments (+ 647 kt), oil products (+ 21.7 p.c.) and iron ore (+ 32.6 p.c.). On the other hand, general cargo traffic fell sharply, as did that of metal-working industry products (- 52.3 p.c.). For those interested additional information on cargo traffic at the port of Ghent in 2002 is presented in table 67 of annex 8, by categories of goods.


4.3 Port of Ostend

4.3.1 Significant facts in 200248 • Context The port of Ostend has been Belgium's leading passenger and car-ferry port for more than 150 years. Until 1993, Regie voor Maritiem Transport (RMT) operated a daily shuttle service to Dover (United Kingdom) before competition from the Channel Tunnel and other ports brought it to its knees in 1997 (liquidation declared in 2000) with other private operators (like Hoverspeed) taking its place, albeit with a more limited service. This far-reaching change in the environment – until that time, RMT had monopolised the outer port – has, however, helped to revive the port's operations and diversify its ro-ro traffic. The transit of cargo has since risen, by 85.3 p.c. from 1998 to 2002, an increase of 3.4 million tonnes transhipped each year49. It is also one of the best-equipped fishing ports in Europe. In 2002, cargo traffic exceeded 6 million tonnes, a capacity which the port authorities hope to see increase over the next few years, with the renovation of the outer port and the widening of the port entrance channel. As far as the ro-ro port is concerned, the new Zeewezendok has significantly increased its capacity to receive and handle containers; it is now considered to be one of the most flexible ports in this respect. In 2002, ro-ro activity achieved record growth of more than 40 p.c., with other activities also enjoying comparable growth. This can be attributed largely to the success of a number of shipping companies such as Transeuropa Ferries. This company has a number of vessels operating ro-ro services in particular towards Ramsgate. • Industry In 2002, Tractebel concluded a contract with Proviron Fine Chemicals (group created by the acquisition in 1996 of the Fine Chemicals group, a division of UCB) to manage, operate and maintain the supplies and facilities on the Plassendale Chemie site. In December, the Belgian-American consortium Immo Industry Group, GE Capital Real Estate and KBC unveiled their construction project for a logistics park in the Plassendale 1 zone situated in the inner port of Ostend. • Infrastructure On 1 October 2002, construction work began on a new railway bridge aimed at opening up the Plassendale 1 site. At the same time, a new bank defence was built near the Seminck Gas site. At the end of the year, major work was carried out at the De Bolle junction with a view to easing the flow of traffic to the port. Generally, the port of Ostend has great expectations of the improvements made in respect of its maritime accessibility. In particular, this improvement includes new developments to the outer port which will initially enable annual maritime traffic to reach the ten million tonne mark. It is also noticeable that production associated with the port, and notably subcontracting, is increasing sharply, in line with that of maritime traffic.

48 Source: Website port of Ostend (http://www.portofoostende.be) and Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002. 49 This last figure must be compared with those figures obtained from other ports: on average + 12.5 p.c. growth over the

same period, i.e. an increase of 22.7 million tonnes, due largely to Antwerp. Source of this information: The Lloyd of 26 February 2004: article entitled « Ostend has increased its market share in 2003 », H. Van Der Zee.


4.3.2 Value added

TABLE 25 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 2002 (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders ................... 5.3 5.0 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.7 3.3 4.0 1.2 - 24.1 - 3.9

Cargo handlers ........... 0.6 0.7 5.2 5.4 4.2 4.9 5.4 6.3 1.9 920.0 39.3

Shipping companies ... 17.4 8.6 - 10.5 4.9 0.5 0.0 - 2.6 - 4.4 - 1.3 - 125.1 - 182.1

Other services............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 - -

Fishing......................... 27.4 30.9 30.6 33.8 27.2 21.9 30.3 17.5 5.4 - 36.2 - 6.2

Shipbuilding and

repair ........................... 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.4 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.0 1.2 24.5 3.2

Other industries........... 12.2 10.9 32.5 26.1 33.7 19.9 23.1 22.8 7.0 86.7 9.3

Public sector ............... 14.0 11.4 11.4 9.0 10.1 8.7 7.8 7.8 2.4 - 44.7 - 8.1

Total maritime ........... 80.2 70.4 76.4 86.9 85.2 64.6 71.9 58.3 18.0 - 27.3 - 4.5


Total wholesale trade.. 18.5 17.4 18.7 21.7 24.8 26.2 24.0 21.7 6.7 17.1 2.3

Energy......................... 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.2 - -

Oil industry .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - -

Chemicals ................... 25.1 34.9 32.8 27.7 29.8 23.3 24.7 35.7 11.0 42.3 5.2

Car manufacturing ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - -

Electronics .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - -

Metal-working industry 19.9 38.7 46.8 54.4 84.9 88.3 130.9 118.5 36.6 497.0 29.1

Food industry .............. 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 3.3 0.6 6.1 6.7 2.1 874.6 38.4

Other industries........... 13.5 13.9 12.7 12.1 8.1 8.6 9.4 6.9 2.1 - 48.9 - 9.1

Total industry .............. 59.1 88.1 92.8 96.0 126.9 121.8 172.0 168.5 52.0 185.2 16.2

Other services............. 17.7 11.6 5.7 9.0 8.8 11.4 13.5 21.4 6.6 21.2 2.8

Other industries........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.5 4.6 5.5 6.1 1.9 - -

Public sector ............... 13.9 15.0 19.3 19.4 20.7 23.4 24.9 25.7 7.9 84.9 9.2

Total logistics services 31.6 26.6 25.0 31.1 34.0 39.4 43.9 53.2 16.4 68.6 7.7

Road transport ............ 10.3 10.0 10.9 11.9 11.7 12.3 16.9 18.5 5.7 79.2 8.7

Other services............. 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.8 0.8 1.2 3.4 3.8 1.2 158.2 14.5

Total transport............. 11.8 11.6 12.4 13.8 12.5 13.5 20.3 22.3 6.9 89.2 9.5

Total non-maritime ... 120.9 143.7 148.9 162.6 198.3 200.9 260.2 265.7 82.0 119.7 11.9

Direct effects ............. 201.2 214.1 225.3 249.5 283.4 265.5 332.0 324.0 100.0 61.1 7.0

Allocation (p.m.).......... 13.2 12.8 8.0 13.5 11.6 9.6 12.9 10.2 - - 22.7 - 3.6

Source: NBB.


TABLE 25 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime............... 89.0 82.0 - 4.9 116.5 73.8 49.9 35.0 - 68.8 - 46.3 - 177.3 - 196.4

Total non-maritime....... 105.6 119.1 112.0 126.4 245.5 273.6 214.9 217.5 146.3 105.9 10.9

Indirect effects.............. 194.6 201.0 107.1 242.9 319.3 323.5 249.8 148.6 100.0 - 23.6 - 3.8

Total value added......... 395.8 415.1 332.4 492.4 602.8 589.0 581.8 472.6 - 19.4 2.6

Source: NBB.

General changes Between 1995 and 2002, the port of Ostend's total VA increased by 19.4 p.c., which corresponds to + 2.6 p.c. per annum on average (table 25). In contrast to Ghent, this growth seems primarily to be due to the companies under review since their VA increased by 61.1 p.c. over the same period (+ 7.0 p.c. per annum on average) whereas the indirect VA decreased by 23.6 p.c. (- 3.8 p.c. per annum). The striking feature of 2001 was its record growth in direct VA (+ 25.0 p.c.), following the year in which it recorded its worst fall (- 6.3 p.c.). Indirect VA rose in 1998 (+ 126.8 p.c.) and 1999 (+ 31.5 p.c.) in particular, before then falling back sharply in 2002 (- 40.5 p.c.). The largest increase in total VA was recorded in 1998 (+ 48.1 p.c.), while in 2002 it fell by 18.8 p.c. (its second worst fall after that of 1997), thus following the indirect VA pattern. During this last year, the VA of the port companies contracted by just 1.7 p.c. The total VA related to port activity for the port of Ostend therefore amounted to 472.6 million euro. 2000 saw the ratio of indirect VA to direct VA settle at 121.8 p.c. at the port of Ostend, its highest level. The sharp fall witnessed in 2001 was confirmed in 2002, when this ratio reached no more than 45.9 p.c. The fall in production noted in the fishing sector is in keeping with this phenomenon (see below). Changes by cluster in direct effects Table 25 shows the quite contrasting changes in VA by respective cluster. For the period under review, 1999 was the year in which all records were set: following the increases in the preceding years, the direct VA peaked at 283.4 million euro. The maritime cluster and logistics services both recorded their biggest increases in 1998 (+ 13.7 p.c. and + 24.2 p.c. respectively). In 2001, industry recorded its second sharpest increase after 1996 (+ 41.1 p.c.). 2002 was characterised by a fall in direct VA (- 2.4 p.c.). Production related to the maritime cluster therefore fell by 18.8 p.c. The VA of the wholesale trade and industry segments was down by 9.6 p.c. and 2.0 p.c. respectively. The VA for transport and logistics services gained 9.8 p.c. and 21.2 p.c. respectively. Changes by sector in direct effects The predominant sectors as far as VA is concerned are metal-working, other industries and chemicals, followed to a lesser extent by public services, other services, fishing and road transport. The direct VA of the port of Ostend recorded its largest increases in 1999 (+ 13.6 p.c.) and 2001 (+ 25.0 p.c.). In 1999, the VA of the metal-working industry rose by 56.1 p.c. After RMT ceased trading, the outer port was redeveloped, freeing up vast areas, favourable to the development of new activities. Besides the metal-working industry, the chemicals industry has also benefited from these favourable circumstances and has seen its VA go up by 7.6 p.c. Following a slight fall in 2000, and a moderate recovery in 2001 which only affected the port companies and was not enough to offset the drop in indirect VA, the aforementioned record fall was the characteristic feature of 2002, particularly in the maritime cluster. At the port of Ostend, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct VA in the main sectors were as follows: • The VA of the metal-working industry decreased by 9.5 p.c. to 118.5 million euro. In the same year, the VA

for Daikin was down 9 p.c. to 116 million euro; • The direct VA of other services (including wholesale trade) increased by 14.9 p.c. to reach 47.2 million euro.

The bankruptcy of Onderlinge Visafslag should be mentioned in this context; • Following two gloomy years, production in the chemicals industry recovered by 44.7 p.c. and its VA was

35.7 million euro. The VA of Proviron Fine Chemicals grew by 17.5 p.c. to 16.7 million euro and the company



concluded a contract with Tractebel to manage, operate and maintain the supplies and facilities on the Plassendale Chemie site;

• The VA of fishing registered its biggest drop over the period, falling 42.2 p.c. to 17.5 million euro. Morubel, whose VA was worth 10 million euro in 2001, was incorporated into Morubel Holding (industry other than fishing according to the NACE-Bel nomenclature); Stolt Sea Farm and De Zwerver lost 13 and 6 p.c. respectively of their VA, recording 2.6 and 1.1 million euro;

• The VA of road transport increased by 9.4 p.c. to 18.5 million euro. VA Top 10 at the port of Ostend in 2002 Daikin Europe, a company in the metal-working industry and specialising in the manufacture of air-conditioning systems, heads this table. Proviron continues to expand, as demonstrated in particular by the growth of Provironftal, a subsidiary which since 2001 has specialised in the production of phthalic anhydride and other phthalates. Compared to 2001, a number of companies no longer figure in this table because they are not obliged to file annual accounts; this is the case with De Oesterbank, a non-profit-making organisation whose NACE-Bel code of 85.322 (« Protected Workshops ») is not comparable to that of any cluster or segment. The absence from this list of Hoverspeed Holyman Ltd is due to the fact that it is a foreign company which does not file accounts at the Central Balance Sheet Office.

TABLE 26 VALUE ADDED TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF OSTEND IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

VA

1 DAIKIN EUROPE NV Metal-working industry 116.3


3 BAGGERWERKEN DECLOEDT EN ZOON Other industries 21.4

4 PROVIRON FINE CHEMICALS Chemicals 16.7

5 PROVIRONFTAL Chemicals 13.0

6 MORUBEL HOLDING Other services 10.3

7 NAVY (DEFENCE ACTIVITIES) Public sector 7.8

8 TRANSPORT MAENHOUT Road transport 6.6

9 CHOCOLATERIE JACALI Food industry 6.1

10 INTERCOMMUNALE VOOR VUILVERWIJDERING... * Other industries 5.6

Total 229.4

Source: NBB.

* INTERCOMMUNALE VOOR VUILVERWIJDERING EN -VERWERKING VOOR OOSTENDE EN OMMELAND



TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 2002 (FTE)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders .................. 85 67 66 78 80 74 31 45 1.1 - 47.0 - 8.7

Cargo handlers........... 15 10 40 45 55 76 68 75 1.8 387.3 25.4

Shipping companies... 1,387 1,309 767 501 390 0 10 11 0.3 - 99.2 - 50.1

Other services ............ 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0.0 - -

Fishing ........................ 577 545 452 454 448 364 391 250 6.1 - 56.7 - 11.3

Shipbuilding and

repair .......................... 112 69 59 61 79 76 86 79 1.9 - 29.3 - 4.8

Other industries .......... 161 155 402 324 281 172 227 187 4.6 15.9 2.1

Public sector............... 475 358 355 232 259 237 212 212 5.2 - 55.4 - 10.9

Total maritime........... 2,813 2,513 2,141 1,694 1,594 1,000 1,026 860 21.0 - 69.4 - 15.6


Total wholesale trade . 452 341 389 365 373 411 402 367 9.0 - 18.8 - 2.9

Energy ........................ 0 0 0 8 5 5 4 4 0.1 - -

Oil industry ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - -

Chemicals................... 338 465 437 442 464 369 307 408 10.0 20.6 2.7

Car manufacturing...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - -

Electronics.................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - -

Metal-working industry 396 561 649 738 882 948 1,117 1,150 28.1 190.5 16.5

Food industry.............. 15 15 10 12 48 11 56 62 1.5 315.3 22.6


Total industry.............. 1,107 1,405 1,437 1,513 1,604 1,529 1,679 1,758 42.9 58.8 6.8

Other services ............ 188 179 104 132 153 162 168 238 5.8 26.7 3.4

Other industries .......... 0 0 0 30 33 34 36 36 0.9 - -

Public sector............... 434 438 557 526 527 569 533 540 13.2 24.4 3.2

Total logistics services 622 617 661 688 713 765 736 814 19.9 30.9 3.9

Road transport............ 157 140 142 169 160 163 231 226 5.5 43.7 5.3

Other services ............ 35 32 31 38 13 18 69 70 1.7 100.0 10.4

Total transport ............ 192 172 173 207 173 181 300 296 7.2 54.0 6.4

Total non-maritime... 2,373 2,535 2,660 2,773 2,863 2,886 3,117 3,235 79.0 36.3 4.5

Direct effects............. 5,186 5,048 4,801 4,467 4,457 3,886 4,143 4,095 100.0 - 21.0 - 3.3

Allocation (p.m.) ......... 277 201 112 178 161 141 162 135 - - 51.2 - 9.7

Source: NBB.


TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (FTE)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime .............. 3,587 3,857 3,792 3,277 2,563 544 654 539 17.6 - 85.0 - 23.7


Indirect effects ............. 5,266 5,756 5,588 5,262 4,792 2,747 3,043 3,065 100.0 - 41.8 - 7.4

Total employment ........ 10,451 10,804 10,389 9,729 9,249 6,633 7,186 7,159 - - 31.5 - 5.3

Source: NBB.

General changes In contrast to the three other ports, total employment (direct, including allocation, and indirect) at the port of Ostend fell markedly over the period 1995 - 2002, by 31.5 p.c., which corresponds to - 5.3 p.c. per annum on average. This change is attributable, above all, to the sharp fall in subcontracting, since indirect employment contracted by 41.8 p.c. over this period, or by - 7.4 p.c. per annum on average. The decrease in direct employment is not as sharp but is nevertheless quite pronounced at - 21.0 p.c., which corresponds to - 3.3 p.c. per annum on average. The employment created, especially in the highly productive sector of the chemicals, was not sufficient to reverse this trend. 2000 will remain a bad year in terms of employment: 12.8 p.c. of direct jobs, 42.7 p.c. of indirect jobs and, as a result, 28.3 p.c. of total employment was lost. This significant fall can be explained largely by the cessation of trading by RMT and by the restructuring work carried out in other sectors such as chemicals. As shown in greater detail below, employment here has fallen constantly, as has investment, which has been virtually zero for Ostend-based shipping companies since 1996. The indirect employment related to this sector is very substantial and the collapse that can be seen in table 27 is the result of RMT ceasing trading, among other things. Since most of the other shipping companies are foreign, the loss of this company has caused Ostend's share in the allocation of the indirect effects related to this sector to fall very sharply. However, the sector generates a lot of indirect jobs. Although Ostend no longer contributes to this total, the impact on the supply chain is immediate, assuming that the indirect effects are limited to the national economy (cf. hypothesis 2 of annex 1 - point 5.2.3). The slight upturn in 2001 (+ 6.6 p.c. direct jobs, + 10.8 p.c. indirect jobs and + 8.3 p.c. total jobs) was not enough to offset these losses. In 2002, another fall in direct employment (- 1.2 p.c.), barely offset by the slight rise in indirect employment (+ 0.7 p.c.), was noted. Overall, this represented a total drop of 0.4 p.c. for all of the companies associated with the port of Ostend. For subcontracting, the ratio between indirect and direct employment peaked at 117.8 p.c. in 1998. It then dropped somewhat in 1999, before falling below 75 p.c. in 2000. In 2002, this ratio amounted to 74.8 p.c. The relative fall in indirect employment at the port of Ostend is due principally to the fall in employment at the shipping companies and in fishing, sectors that are heavily dependent on external labour. Changes by cluster in direct effects Even though employment has been declining since 1998, it fell most sharply in 2000 (- 12.8 p.c., see table 27), with the liquidation of RMT and the loss of its 390 jobs. With the disappearance of this company's direct employment, together with the labour related to its operations, the number of jobs in the maritime cluster shrank by 37,3 p.c. The industry segment was also dragged down by this fall, although to a lesser degree (- 4.7 p.c.). After picking up slightly in 2001 (+ 6.6 p.c.), direct employment fell once again the following year, which also saw a considerable decrease in VA at Ostend. In 2002, there was a substantial decline in employment in the maritime cluster (- 16.2 p.c.) and in the wholesale trade (- 8.7 p.c.). On the other hand, the number of people employed in industry and in logistics services grew by 4.7 p.c. and 10.6 p.c. respectively.



Changes by sector in direct effects The fall in employment at the port of Ostend between 1995 and 2002 stemmed mainly from the cessation of trading of RMT. This public corporation, included in the shipping companies sector, still employed 1,356 workers in 1995. This workforce shrank to 390 during the four next years. As has been highlighted already, the year 2000 saw a record fall in employment at the port of Ostend, with particularly sharp decreases in the chemicals (- 20.4 p.c.) and fishing (- 18.9 p.c.) industries. Despite the general recovery in 2001, 2002 reaffirmed the fall which has been in evidence previously. At the port of Ostend, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct employment in the main sectors were as follows: • The fall recorded stems principally from the fishing sector, where employment fell by 36.0 p.c. to 250 FTE.

The falls in production at Stolt Sea Farm or De Zwerver, and also the takeover of Morubel by Morubel Holding (which, according to the NACE-Bel nomenclature, is not categorised under the industry « Fishing ») were noted; these impacted on employment;

• Employment in the chemicals increased by 32.7 p.c., to 408 FTE. The good results posted by Proviron and Provironftal explain why these companies have been taking on staff since 2001;

• There were no major changes in employment in the metal-working industry. Employment rose by 2.9 p.c. to 1,150 FTE, and this despite the fall in production at Daikin Europe;

• In the other services, employment climbed 5.7 p.c. to 677 FTE; • As for employment in other industries, this fell by 21.8 p.c. to 357 FTE. Employment Top 10 at the port of Ostend in 2002 As far as employment is concerned, the importance of Daikin and Provironftal is also noticeable. Daikin Europe alone employs more than 1,000 people.

TABLE 28 EMPLOYMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF OSTEND IN 2002 (FTE)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Employment

1 DAIKIN EUROPE NV Metal-working industry 1,112

2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public sector 540

3 NAVY (DEFENCE ACTIVITIES) Public sector 212

4 PROVIRONFTAL Chemicals 176

5 BAGGERWERKEN DECLOEDT EN ZOON Other industries 168

6 PROVIRON FINE CHEMICALS Chemicals 122

7 MORUBEL HOLDING Other services 104

8 STOLT SEA FARM Fishing 69

9 ORAC Chemicals 66

10 OSWALD DE BRUYCKER Other services 63

Total 2,631

Source: NBB.


4.3.4 Investment

TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INVESTMENT AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 2002 (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders ................... 0.3 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 58.2 6.8 Cargo handlers ........... 0.4 0.8 0.8 2.7 8.6 9.1 5.3 4.6 7.5 1,079.5 42.3 Shipping companies ... 111.9 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9 - 99.5 - 53.2 Other services............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 - - Fishing......................... 5.9 12.2 5.7 11.0 17.8 19.1 6.8 4.0 6.5 - 32.1 - 5.4 Shipbuilding and repair ........................... 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.7 2.9 2.3 0.8 0.4 0.6 - 57.5 - 11.5 Other industries........... 1.4 0.9 30.4 18.7 42.7 6.2 0.8 0.6 0.9 - 59.5 - 12.1 Public sector ............... 0.6 2.8 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 - 100.0 Total maritime ........... 121.4 19.5 38.9 35.9 72.6 37.6 16.3 10.7 17.4 - 91.2 - 29.4


Total wholesale trade.. 5.4 3.5 7.0 10.4 7.0 7.4 4.3 6.0 9.8 11.7 1.6 Energy......................... 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 - - Oil industry .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Chemicals ................... 3.1 10.5 8.9 18.5 12.5 20.6 7.6 7.3 12 140.6 13.4 Car manufacturing ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Electronics .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Metal-working industry 6.2 5.0 7.2 11.3 11.8 14.0 17.3 7.7 12.6 25.3 3.3 Food industry .............. 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 4.0 1.0 1.6 56.6 6.6 Other industries........... 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.1 - 57.5 - 11.5 Total industry .............. 11.5 17.0 17.5 30.8 26.4 35.8 30.2 16.8 27.4 46.1 5.6 Other services............. 4.0 1.8 2.2 1.1 2.3 2.6 5.4 7.6 12.5 89.1 9.5 Other industries........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.4 2.2 - - Public sector ............... 13.0 16.7 23.7 19.6 16.1 17.4 6.2 12.0 19.5 - 8.1 - 1.2 Total logistics services 17.0 18.5 25.9 25.2 19.2 20.4 12.0 21.0 34.2 23.0 3.0 Road transport ............ 3.3 2.5 2.7 3.4 2.6 3.7 4.5 3.4 5.6 3.5 0.5 Other services............. 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.4 3.5 5.7 1534.5 49.1 Total transport............. 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.4 3.0 4.2 5.9 6.9 11.3 96.8 10.2


Direct effects ............. 158.8 61.5 92.8 106.8 128.3 105.4 68.6 61.3 100.0 - 61.4 - 12.7

Allocation (p.m.).......... 4.7 10.7 2.7 5.3 10.6 7.9 3.8 2.8 - - 39.8 - 7.0

Source: NBB.

General changes Over the period under review, the total investment at the port of Ostend fell by an average of 12.7 p.c. per annum (table 29). The sharpest fall in the total was recorded in 1996 (- 61.3 p.c.), the year when investments at RMT ceased (the « Regie » acquired the Prins Filip ferryboat in 1995). The trend then rose in 1997, in particular with regard to port infrastructures, increasing by 50.8 p.c. in total. On the other hand, over the last three years, there was a sustained fall in investment: of 17.8 p.c. in 2000, 35.0 p.c. in 2001 and 10.6 p.c. in 2002, the year for which investment at the port of Ostend reached 61.3 million euro, 2.8 million of which were from allocation. Changes by cluster From 1995 to 2002, the most noticeable changes in investments at the port of Ostend were in the maritime cluster. At this level, the sharpest fall (- 83.9 p.c.) was observed in 1996 (table 29). This can be explained to a very great extent by the cessation of investments at RMT. 1997 saw an improvement in investments at the port of Ostend. For the maritime cluster, growth was 100.0 p.c., as was also the case for the wholesale trade segment, while growth for the logistics services was 39.7 p.c. The rise continued until 1999, followed by a structural decline in 2000, the year when RMT officially ceased trading. This downturn was confirmed in 2001 and the trend


continued in 2002. Hence, investments in industry and the maritime cluster fell by 44.3 and 34.4 p.c. respectively. However, investment in logistics services rose again. Changes by sector Apart from 1995 - which was an exceptional year for RMT on account of the extent of its investments at the port of Ostend (110.8 million euro, including the acquisition of the Prins Filip ferryboat) – and the subsequent sharp fall, total investment climbed steadily between 1996 and 1999 before falling back again from 2000 onwards. During 1999, the other industries and fishing sectors increased their investments by 84.2 and 61.1 p.c. respectively. Over the next two years, total investment then plummeted, and the downward trend continued in 2002, albeit at a more moderate rate. At the port of Ostend, the major changes recorded in 2002 for investment in the main sectors were as follows:

• The sums invested in other services increased by 55.1 p.c. to 17.2 million euro. The efforts made by the SNCB in terms of investments should also be observed;

• Investments in other industries increased by 7.4 p.c. to 2.6 million euro. Baggerwerken De Cloedt en Zoon followed this trend;

• Investments in the chemicals decreased slightly (- 2.8 p.c.) to 7.3 million euro; • Investment at cargo handling firms fell by 13.7 p.c. to 4.6 million euro. For example, Ostend Transport,

Transshipment and Trading followed this trend; • A sharp reduction was recorded in the metal-working industry (- 55.2 p.c.), with investments falling to

7.7 million euro. Daikin Europe posted the sharpest fall; in 2002, investment totalled just 7.6 million euro; • In the public sector, investment rose 52.5 p.c. to 12.0 million euro. Of note here is the importance of the

construction of the Plassendale 1 industrial zone into which the Flemish Region injected 6 million euro in 2002, or 40.8 p.c. of the total public funds invested in the port. Since port activities were regionalised in 1993, the Flemish Region has devoted a budget of more than 154.3 million euro to the development of the port of Ostend;

• Investment in the fishing sector fell by 41.3 p.c. to 4.0 million euro. The increase in investment at Stolt Sea Farm did not compensate for the effect of the takeover of Morubel by Morubel Holding.

Investment Top 10 at the port of Ostend in 2002 Daikin Europe tops the list. The picture is quite different to that of the previous year. SNCB is highly placed on the list. Work on the construction of a new railway bridge over the channel joining the ports of Ostend and Ghent, aimed at opening up the Plassendale 1 site, began in October 2002. Stadsvernieuwing Oostende plays an active role, especially in terms of development at the Churchill Site port.

TABLE 30 INVESTMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF OSTEND IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Investment


2 DAIKIN EUROPE NV Metal-working industry 7.6

3 J M HUBER BELGIUM Chemicals 5.1

4 AUTONOOM GEMEENTEBEDRIJF HAVEN OOSTENDE Cargo-handlers 3.9

5 JET CENTER Other services 2.7

6 TRANSPORT MAENHOUT Road transport 2.1

7 OSWALD DE BRUYCKER Other services 1.7

8 SNCB – NMBS Other services 1.6

9 STADSVERNIEUWING OOSTENDE Other services 1.6

10 BOOT CENTER Other services 1.1

Total 39.3

Source: NBB.




Clusters


(in p.c.)


Solvency

(in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Maritime cluster ........... - 0.2 3.4 2.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 38.1 38.6 34.1

Non maritime cluster

Wholesale trade .......... 15.5 5.8 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 28.1 31.9 36.0

Industry........................ 11.1 18.9 12.2 0.6 0.6 0.7 15.8 15.6 26.7

Logistics services ........ 2.6 5.3 6.6 1.5 1.8 2.3 42.6 45.7 50.2

Transport ..................... 10.4 7.1 5.9 1.7 1.2 0.8 54.5 41.3 22.5

Weighted average ......... 4.4 7.2 7.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 32.1 33.7 36.1

Source: NBB.

• The slight decrease recorded in 2002 with regard to the financial profitability of companies associated with the

port of Ostend was due mainly to the maritime cluster and the industry segment (table 31). The increase achieved by logistics services partly offset this decline. 2001 was an excellent year at the port of Ostend in terms of profitability (return on equity), despite the fact that it proved impossible to maintain these good results the following year;

• On average, there was no change in the liquidity ratio, since the fall recorded at the maritime cluster level was offset by the increase in industry and logistics services;

• In 2002, the port companies were, on average, more solvent than during the two previous years. This trend was evident in industry and logistics services. The fall at the maritime cluster level did not lead to a trend reversal.

In the transport segment, the three ratios continued to fall in 2002. As far as profitability was concerned, the profits of companies like Vervoer Depoorter fell substantially. As far as liquidity is concerned, the short-term debts of Ostend Office continued to rise, owing to investments in fixed assets and in the form of leasing. By sector • In industry, the slight fall in profitability in 2002 was due to the poor results in the chemicals and metal-

working industries (minor change in relative terms but significant in nominal terms). The decreasing profitability recorded by J M Huber Belgium – associated with a capital increase – and increasing depreciation at Provironftal explain this phenomenon in the chemicals industry, while a capital increase at Daikin Europe following deferred profits accounts for the fall in the ratio in metal-working industry. The poor results in the fishing and shipbuilding sectors explain the decrease in the ratio for the maritime cluster;

• The apparent stability of the liquidity ratio at the port of Ostend concealed a decrease in the maritime cluster and an increase in the logistics services segment. The first observation stemmed from the noticeable fall in the ratio for fishing (table 32), with, in particular, an increase of 44.8 p.c. in debts of more than one year at Stolt Sea Farm. This company, which carries out fish processing operations, continued to invest in extending its production site and, consequently, in the purchase of new equipment. This was reflected at the level of depreciations and by the increase in short-term debts, and in particular financial debts. The increase in logistics services was the result of a significant drop (- 25.0 p.c.) in short-term debts at Daikin Europe Coordination Center, a company dominating the other services sector;



Sectors


(in p.c.)


Solvency

(in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Shipping agents and forwarders...................... - 47.0 28.2 33.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 13.6 26.8 16.3

Cargo handlers ................................................ 3.8 3.1 2.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 73.5 75.2 72.8

Shipping companies ........................................ n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Road transport ................................................. 15.1 15.1 13.8 1.5 1.4 1.6 48.7 42.5 45.1

Other services.................................................. 4.0 5.0 5.7 1.5 1.7 2.0 41.2 44.0 45.7

Energy ............................................................. 9.5 6.7 21.6 0.7 0.9 1.5 56.5 59.9 38.5

Oil industry....................................................... n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Chemicals ........................................................ - 15.4 4.0 - 18.1 0.7 0.5 1.0 7.6 - 2.3 31.0

Shipbuilding and repair.................................... 8.3 4.8 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 29.8 31.3 14.8

Car manufacturing ........................................... n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Electronics ....................................................... n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Metal-working industry..................................... 15.4 21.5 19.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 16.3 18.5 25.4

Fishing ............................................................. - 14.4 0.3 - 7.4 1.4 1.3 0.7 33.0 32.1 23.3

Food industry................................................... 17.1 19.4 42.2 1.3 1.1 1.6 17.2 15.4 25.3

Other industries ............................................... 2.4 4.0 5.8 1.2 1.3 1.6 28.6 29.4 33.4

Public sector .................................................... n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Weighted average ............................................. 4.4 7.2 7.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 32.1 33.7 36.1

Source: NBB.

• In 2002, the increase in the average solvency of the port of Ostend's companies was attributable primarily to

metal-working, chemicals and other industries. Some examples for these three sectors are: Daikin Europe which proceeded to increase its equity capital (its solvency ratio consequently increasing from 18.3 to 25.3 p.c.), J M Huber Belgium which followed suit (ratio increased from - 34.4 to 81.1 p.c.) and Baggerwerken De Cloedt (ratio increased from 26.9 to 30.8 p.c.).

4.3.6 Cargo traffic in the port of Ostend in 2002

Summary

TABLE 33 OSTEND (thousands of tonnes)

Unloaded

Loaded

Total 2002

Change 2001- 2002

(in p.c.)

Share 2002

(in p.c.)

Containers ................ 31 10 41 100.0 0.7

Roll-on/roll-off ........... 1,795 2,773 4,579 42.1 73.4

Other general cargo . n. n. 33 13.8 0.5

Liquid bulk ................ 20 1 21 16.7 0.3

Dry bulk .................... n. n. 1,565 1.8 25.1

Total ......................... n. n. 6,239 + 29.2 100.0


Although not all of the data relating to the distribution of total transit at the port of Ostend are available, in particular for the distribution of unloadings and loadings of general cargo and solid bulk, the totals may


nevertheless serve as a basis in drawing up comparisons with 2001 (table 33). An increase in transhipments was recorded, thus following the trend begun in 2000, following six years of decrease. As indicated in point 4.3.1, transhipments at Ostend grew by 85.3 p.c. between 1998 and 2002. Ro-ro activities, which here account for 73.4 p.c. of the total, were characterised in 2002 by an historic increase, related to the increased frequency of ferry services to Ramsgate and Ipswich and the introduction of a service to Killingholme. The increase in this « traffic is, at Ostend, well ahead of that for Ghent and is beginning to seriously challenge that of Zeebrugge »52. Passenger transport recorded a fall of 44.5 p.c., producing a figure of only 394,107 passengers in 2002; the same goes for car ferry transport which has fallen by 57.1 p.c. The fall in passenger traffic must be considered in relation to the competition from low-cost airlines and the Channel Tunnel. The reduction in car transit is related in particular to the withdrawal of the Hoverspeed service to Dover. Unlike the three other ports, 99 p.c. of the services from the port of Ostend are to Europe, and above all to the United Kingdom. For those interested additional information on cargo traffic at the port of Ostend in 2002 is presented in table 68 of annex 8, by categories of goods.

52 Extract from an article in The Lloyd of 26 February 2003 entitled: « Ostend has increased its market share in 2003 », H. Van

Der Zee.


4.4 Port of Zeebrugge

4.4.1 Significant facts in 200253 • Context Between 1974 and 1984, the port of Zeebrugge underwent large-scale expansion with the construction of a new outer port, sea lock and inner port. These changes have ensured that the port is now capable of accommodating vessels with a much greater draught and increased tonnage. Modern and spacious terminals have been installed, considerably increasing the transhipment capacity. In 2002, cargo traffic reached nearly 33 million tonnes, more than double the figure recorded in 1985, a pivotal year. Three-quarters of the cargo handled are unit cargo: new cars, containers and trailers. Over recent years, the port of Zeebrugge has transformed itself from a simple transit port into a logistics platform where value is added to cargo prior to distribution. The volume of ro-ro traffic fell by 4.9 p.c. in 2002, while the tonnage of cargo transported by container once again reached the peak achieved in 2000: nearly 12 million tonnes (+ 12.1 p.c.). Moreover, Zeebrugge is underlining its position as the European leader in unaccompanied ro-ro freight traffic. • Industry In 2002, the American fruit juice manufacturer Tropicana built a new production unit alongside the USA-Kaai. Antwerp's mobile scanner is made available to the Zeebrugge port authorities on a regular basis. Inter Ferry Boats (IFB) began construction work on a new cross docking station. Bridgestone Firestone Europe (BFE) expanded the inner port warehouse and Middlegate Europe acquired a new warehouse with offices, in the port's transport zone. • Infrastructure In order to improve the integration of the port into the logistics chain from and towards the hinterland, the port authorities have created a structure enabling the transportation of containers by rail and by coastal or inland waters to be better organised: PortConnect. In the outer port, work on the Leopold II dam continued as part of the sixth phase of renovation of the Kaaimuur (Wielingendok). The development of the Noordelijk Insteekdok has been completed. On 22 November, the Flemish Region authorised the deepening of the channel towards the port of Zeebrugge, as part of the programme entitled « 55/46 feet54 ».

53 Sources: Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeevaartinrichtingen Annual Report 2002 and Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual

Report 2002. 54 55 feet correspond to approximately 16.7 m.


4.4.2 Value added

TABLE 34 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 2002

(millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders ................... 25.1 28.8 28.3 22.2 22.6 21.6 21.2 23.7 3.5 - 5.5 - 0.8

Cargo handlers ........... 43.5 35.1 50.8 54.0 71.2 88.4 95.2 99.9 14.5 130.0 12.6

Shipping companies ... 13.3 15.3 6.9 5.8 13.7 4.4 5.8 11.3 1.6 - 14.8 - 2.3

Other services............. 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 - 31.3 - 5.2

Fishing......................... 27.5 23.0 28.7 23.0 26.4 30.6 35.3 28.2 4.1 2.5 0.4

Shipbuilding and

repair ........................... 7.6 4.8 6.2 7.2 7.8 9.7 10.6 8.5 1.2 12.4 1.7


Public sector ............... 39.3 45.3 47.6 73.6 76.0 72.8 70.1 69.8 10.2 77.7 8.6

Total maritime ........... 185.0 180.5 182.5 205.0 237.5 261.3 264.7 271.1 39.5 46.5 5.6


Total wholesale trade.. 37.4 51.3 58.0 65.9 67.5 55.4 60.5 41.2 6.0 10.1 1.4

Energy......................... 33.0 33.5 36.5 62.5 65.2 80.6 78.6 69.1 10.1 109.2 11.1

Oil industry .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - -

Chemicals ................... 20.9 23.1 24.9 26.9 28.3 29.3 29.6 28.4 4.1 35.8 4.5

Car manufacturing ...... 7.0 6.0 7.4 9.3 10.4 11.4 20.9 15.1 2.2 114.6 11.5

Electronics .................. 87.2 95.4 71.0 55.4 55.9 72.0 64.8 58.3 8.5 - 33.2 - 5.6

Metal-working industry 38.7 38.1 36.8 42.1 42.7 48.1 49.8 50.4 7.3 30.4 3.9

Food industry .............. 15.5 11.1 18.0 17.9 15.7 13.8 13.3 12.5 1.8 - 19.4 - 3.0


Total industry .............. 234.3 232.3 218.1 241.8 248.1 293.9 297.2 272.2 39.6 16.2 2.2

Other services............. 12.0 9.6 6.9 7.3 10.3 11.9 14.5 15.9 2.3 32.9 4.1


Public sector ............... 14.3 15.2 15.2 15.4 15.6 13.9 17.5 17.4 2.5 21.6 2.8

Total logistics services 37.7 38.0 35.0 37.8 42.1 44.1 49.8 45.2 6.6 19.8 2.6

Road transport ............ 27.3 34.8 33.3 36.7 42.9 39.7 35.7 40.5 5.9 48.4 5.8

Other services............. 11.2 13.0 10.9 12.2 12.3 13.4 14.0 16.8 2.4 49.4 5.9

Total transport............. 38.5 47.8 44.2 48.9 55.1 53.2 49.7 57.3 8.3 48.7 5.8


Direct effects ............. 533.0 549.8 537.8 599.4 650.3 707.8 721.8 687.0 100.0 28.9 3.7

Allocation (p.m.).......... 18.5 14.9 8.0 16.3 19.4 21.2 27.2 23.8 - 28.3 3.6

Source: NBB.


TABLE 34 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN VALUE ADDED AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 2002

(continued) (millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime............... 165.7 181.0 175.1 148.4 225.8 170.0 171.0 300.6 45.4 81.5 8.9

Total non-maritime....... 267.2 276.1 269.6 294.0 325.6 343.3 371.8 361.8 54.6 35.4 4.4

Indirect effects.............. 432.9 457.1 444.7 442.4 551.5 513.3 542.8 662.4 100.0 53.0 6.3

Total value added......... 965.8 1,007.0 982.4 1,041.8 1,201.8 1,221.1 1,264.7 1,349.4 - 39.7 4.9

Source: NBB.

General changes Between 1995 and 2002, the total VA (direct, allocation, and indirect) increased by 39.7 p.c., which corresponds to 4.9 p.c. per annum on average (table 34). This rising trend was more apparent for indirect VA which increased by 6.3 p.c. per annum on average, compared to 3.7 p.c. for direct VA. The most substantial increase in direct VA was recorded in 1998 (+ 11.5 p.c.), while both total VA and indirect VA increased most in 1999 (+ 15.4 p.c. and + 24.6 p.c. respectively). The only fall in total VA came in 1997 (- 2.4 p.c.). In 2002, the total production related to the port of Zeebrugge recorded its second highest growth rate (+ 6.7 p.c.), to 1.3 billion euro, underpinned by subcontracting. Indirect VA increased by 22.0 p.c. and direct VA decreased by 4.8 p.c. Expressed in proportion to direct VA, there is less indirect VA in relative terms than in the other three ports, since these sectors most dependent on subcontracting activities are quite poorly represented at Zeebrugge. Between 1995 and 2001, the ratio of indirect VA to direct VA only peaked to 84.8 p.c. in 1999, owing to the growth achieved by the shipping companies, a sector heavily dependent on external labour. This ratio reached 96.4 p.c. in 2002, a year of high production levels for shipping companies, metal-working industry and road transport. Changes by cluster in direct effects The average annual growth (+ 3.7 p.c.) of the direct VA is largely attributable to the maritime cluster (+ 5.6 p.c.) and the industry segment (+ 2.2 p.c.). In 1998, the year in which the port of Zeebrugge recorded its largest general increase in direct VA, maritime cluster production rose by 12.3 p.c., while respective production figures for other sectors were as follows: wholesale trade (+ 13.7 p.c.), industry (+ 10.8 p.c.), logistics services (+ 8.0 p.c.). and transport (+ 10.7 p.c.). This upward trend continued up to 2001, followed by a fall in 2002 (- 4.8 p.c.). The VA of the maritime cluster grew by 2.4 p.c. and that of transport by 15.3 p.c.. On the other hand, the fall in industrial production registered 8.4 p.c. In logistics services, the VA decreased by 9.3 p.c. while the VA of the wholesale trade fell by 31.8 p.c. Changes by sector in direct effects The production of the port of Zeebrugge is divided between the following sectors: cargo handling, the energy and electronics industries, other industries, other services, public sector, fishing, the metal-working industry and road transport (table 34). A slight drop in VA was only recorded in 1997, a year characterised by a significant fall in production at shipping companies (- 54.9 p.c.) and in the electronics industry (- 25.5 p.c.). The increase witnessed in subsequent years was sharp particularly in 1999: cargo handling production recorded its second largest increase (+ 31.7 p.c.), while VA for the energy industry, fishing and road transport rose by 4.3, 14.7 and 16.8 p.c. respectively. This growth continued over the following years until 2001, as already mentioned. At the port of Zeebrugge, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct VA in the main sectors were as follows: • The VA of cargo handling rose by 5.0 p.c. to reach its highest level: 99.9 million euro. By way of example,

note should be taken of the considerable increases in production at Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeevaartinrichtingen (+ 20 p.c. and 22.5 million euro), Ocean Containerterminal Hessenatie Zeebrugge (+ 35 p.c. and 11 million euro) and Sea-Ro Terminal (+ 7 p.c. and 43 million euro);

• The VA of other services (including wholesale trade) fell by 16.8 p.c. to 74.1 million euro. The VA of International Repair Services fell by 8 p.c. to 1.2 million euro;



• The VA of the energy industry fell by 12.1 p.c., to 69.1 million euro. This fall is due largely to a production decrease of 8 p.c. at Electrabel, the VA of which was reduced to 38 million euro;

• The VA of the electronics decreased by 10.1 p.c. to 58.3 million euro. However, the fall in production at Philips Industrial Activities, the VA of which fell by 12 p.c. to 55.3 million euro, should be noted. This fall was compensated for by the introduction of a new company: Ninix Technologies, the VA of which was 1.4 million euro;

• The VA of fishing fell by 19.9 p.c. to 28.2 million euro. The decrease in VA recorded by Seagull (0.9 million euro) is one of the reasons behind this fall, as is the decrease in activities at companies like Vaya Con Dios;

• The VA of the metal-working industry continued to grow (+ 1.2 p.c.) to 50.4 million euro. Among the largest increases: Donaldson Europe (+ 13 p.c. and 1.8 million euro);

• The VA of road transport rose sharply (+ 13.4 p.c.) to 40.5 million euro. The production of D.D. Trans increased by 18.0 p.c., and its VA amounted to 17.2 million euro.

VA Top 10 at the port of Zeebrugge in 2002 Philips Industrial Activities and Sea-Ro Terminal retained their positions as the port of Zeebrugge's largest producers. Fluxys dropped two places and Electrabel gained one place due, inter alia, to the inclusion in the top 10 of the public sector. Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeevaartinrichtingen, which manages and operates the port, occupies seventh place in the table, just after Pieters Visbedrijf (which belongs to the wholesale trade segment and the other services sector - NACE-Bel 51381).

TABLE 35 VA TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Value added

1 NAVY (DEFENCE ACTIVITIES) Public sector 69.8

2 PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES Electronics 55.3

3 SEA-RO TERMINAL Cargo handlers 43.3


5 FLUXYS Energy 30.6

6 PIETERS VISBEDRIJF Other services 22.6

7 MAATSCHAPPIJ VAN DE BRUGSE ZEEVAARTINRICHTINGEN Cargo handlers 22.5

8 GLAVERBEL Other industries 20.0

9 PEMCO BRUGGE Chemicals 19.1

10 BAGGERWERKEN DECLOEDT EN ZOON Other industries 17.5

Total 339.1

Source: NBB.



TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 2002 (FTE)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and

forwarders .................. 409 394 442 360 321 267 252 294 3.0 - 28.1 - 4.6

Cargo handlers........... 684 866 987 1,054 1,196 1,327 1,303 1,291 13.2 88.8 9.5

Shipping companies... 257 135 82 82 114 119 96 118 1.2 - 54.1 - 10.5

Other services ............ 7 4 6 7 2 9 6 5 0.0 - 31.0 - 5.2

Fishing ........................ 529 395 433 348 395 494 489 430 4.4 - 18.7 - 2.9

Shipbuilding and

repair .......................... 247 115 136 169 179 190 197 157 1.6 - 36.5 - 6.3


Public sector............... 1,379 1,541 1,750 1,888 1,956 1,982 1,907 1,907 19.5 38.3 4.7

Total maritime........... 3,921 3,851 4,007 4,129 4,394 4,707 4,546 4,533 46.3 15.6 2.1


Total wholesale trade . 804 591 753 888 865 613 663 677 6.9 - 15.9 - 2.4

Energy ........................ 106 106 131 335 348 378 355 330 3.4 210.7 17.6

Oil industry ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - -

Chemicals................... 320 335 339 344 347 321 357 285 2.9 - 11.0 - 1.7

Car manufacturing...... 31 27 34 24 30 42 21056 51 0.5 65.5 7.5

Electronics.................. 1,579 1,484 867 662 693 749 761 657 6.7 - 58.4 - 11.8

Metal-working industry 634 626 588 646 586 652 681 675 6.9 6.5 0.9

Food industry.............. 277 212 266 293 298 271 267 267 2.7 - 3.5 - 0.5

Other industries .......... 494 499 463 538 560 626 650 612 6.3 23.9 3.1

Total industry.............. 3,441 3,288 2,688 2,842 2,861 3,039 3,281 2,878 29.4 - 16.4 - 2.5

Other services ............ 264 189 99 116 135 217 216 235 2.4 - 11.0 - 1.6


Public sector............... 414 410 409 408 403 348 338 337 3.4 - 18.6 - 2.9

Total logistics services 883 754 660 679 716 832 826 755 7.7 - 14.5 - 2.2

Road transport............ 479 531 566 593 686 660 599 616 6.3 28.6 3.7

Other services ............ 307 286 705 241 255 269 279 325 3.3 6.0 0.8

Total transport ............ 786 817 1,271 833 941 929 878 942 9.6 19.8 2.6

Total non-maritime... 5,914 5,449 5,373 5,242 5,382 5,412 5,648 5,251 53.7 - 11.2 - 1.7

Direct effects............. 9,835 9,300 9,379 9,371 9,776 10,119 10,193 9,783 100.0 - 0.5 - 0.1

Allocation (p.m.) ......... 441 249 262 250 282 318 347 318 - - 27.9 - 4.6

Source: NBB.

56 The large discrepancy arising here stems from the fact that the company International Van - a manufacturer of prefabricated

units for lorries and semitrailers - did not file any annual accounts in 2000 and 2002.


TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 2002 (continued) (FTE)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Total maritime............. 2,225 2,126 2,306 2,305 2,501 3,007 3,015 3,107 40.5 39.7 4.9

Total non-maritime ..... 4,270 3,993 3,853 4,067 4,385 4,658 5,126 4,574 59.5 7.1 1.0

Indirect effects............ 6,495 6,119 6,159 6,371 6,886 7,665 8,141 7,681 100.0 18.3 2.4

Total employment....... 16,331 15,419 15,539 15,742 16,662 17,784 18,334 17,465 - 6.9 1.0

Source: NBB.

General changes Total employment at the port of Zeebrugge increased by 6.9 p.c. between 1995 and 2002, which corresponds to + 1.0 p.c. per annum on average (table 36). The growth pattern is very similar to that for Ghent: it is actually indirect employment which increased the most (+ 18.3 p.c., or + 2.4 p.c. per annum on average), while direct employment decreased on average by 0.1 p.c. per annum. The biggest increase was recorded in 2000 (increase in total employment of 6.7 p.c.), mainly due to a rise in subcontracting (+ 11.3 p.c.), linked to the growth in employment in the metal-working industry and fishing, sectors which are heavily dependent on external labour. On the other hand, in 2000 direct employment only rose by 3.5 p.c. as opposed to + 4.3 p.c. in 1999. The most significant fall in employment occurred in 2002, when total employment dropped by 4.7 p.c. to 17,465 FTE (direct and indirect employment were down by 4.0 p.c. and 5.6 p.c. respectively). In contrast to the observations made for VA, there was no major change to the ratio of indirect to direct employment in 2002. This had increased on an almost constant basis since 1995, peaking in 2001 (79.9 p.c.). In 2002, this ratio dipped to 78.5 p.c. Changes by cluster in direct effects The most marked growth in employment at the port of Zeebrugge was in 1999, one year after the best year in terms of production growth. After a period of relative stagnation between 1996 and 1998, the three following years were characterised by an increase in employment until 2001, when the total of 10,193 direct FTE was reached. 2002 was characterised by a fall of 4.0 p.c., mainly in industry (- 12.3 p.c.), but also in logistics services (- 8.5 p.c.). However, a slight rise was noted in the wholesale trade (+ 2.0 p.c.) and in transport (+ 7.3 p.c.). Changes by sector in direct effects Most of the employment related to the operations of the port of Zeebrugge is concentrated in the following sectors: the public sector (the Navy), cargo handling firms, other services, other industries and, to a lesser degree, the electronics and metal-working industries, road transport and fishing (table 36). In 1999, the most substantial increases in employment were recorded in cargo handling (+ 13.4 p.c.), the electronics industry (+ 4.7 p.c.), fishing (+ 13.5 p.c.), etc. The increase continued to a moderate extent in 2001. At the port of Zeebrugge, the major changes recorded in 2002 for the direct employment in the main sectors were as follows:

• Public sector employment (main employer in the port), stagnated in 2002 at 2,244 FTE; • Employment in cargo handling, a sector undergoing restructuring, fell by 0.9 p.c. to 1,291 FTE; • Employment in other services grew by 6.7 p.c. to 1,242 FTE, as a result in particular of the increases in

staff at Group 4 Total Security and SNCB; • Employment in other industries fell by 7.5 p.c. to 1,126 FTE. By way of example, there have been

considerable decreases in the number of employees at Deme Environmental Contractors; • Following several years of growth, employment fell by 13.7 p.c. in the electronics industry to 657 FTE.

The workforce at Philips Industrial Activities, the largest private employer at the port of Zeebrugge, decreased from 719 to 595 FTE;



• Following two good years for the labour market, employment related to the metal-working industry stagnated (- 0.8 p.c.) and now stands at 675 FTE. Despite the good results, this sector – including Motogroup and Seapane –cut a number of jobs;

• Following a poor 2001, employment in road transport advanced by 2.9 p.c. to 616 FTE. A slight increase in employment was recorded at D.D. Trans, Macotruck and Vandamme Madoe;

• The loss of jobs in the fishing sector was confirmed (- 12.1 p.c.), with employment falling back to 430 FTE. Most of the small businesses in the sector have reduced their workforce, especially Seagull.

Employment Top 10 at the port of Zeebrugge in 2002 Electrabel and SNCB now feature on this list: Electrabel is a business established in more than one location and SNCB is now considered to be part of the other services sector. The navy is the port's largest employer, which explains why it also heads the list in terms of VA.

TABLE 37 EMPLOYMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE IN 2002 (FTE)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Employment

1 NAVY (DEFENCE ACTIVITIES) Public sector 1,907

2 PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES Electronics 595

3 SEA-RO TERMINAL * Cargo handlers 493

4 BELGIAN NEW FRUIT WHARF * Cargo handlers 386

5 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public sector 337

6 PIETERS VISBEDRIJF Other services 336

7 ELECTRABEL Energy 234

8 SNCB – NMBS Other services 233

9 D.D. TRANS Road transport 219

10 ONDERNEMINGEN JAN DE NUL - ENTREPRISES JAN DE NUL Other industries 202

Total 4,942

Source: NBB.

* The employment of dockers was distributed among companies in the cargo handling sector.


4.4.4 Investment

TABLE 38 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INVESTMENT AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 2002

(millions of euros)


1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Relative share in

2002 (in p.c.)

Change from 1995

to 2002 (in p.c.)


Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders ................... 3.9 4.0 10.4 5.6 8.6 5.2 5.2 7.8 6.5 98.3 10.3 Cargo handlers ........... 14.8 9.3 21.1 29.1 65.1 45.0 23.6 25.3 21.2 71.4 8.0 Shipping companies ... 4.2 2.1 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.6 3.2 9.3 7.8 120.2 11.9 Other services............. 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 95.0 - 34.9 Fishing......................... 5.9 15.2 11.8 9.7 21.4 20.1 10.3 7.1 6.0 20.1 2.6 Shipbuilding and repair ........................... 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 - 51.1 - 9.7 Other industries........... 4.1 3.6 2.3 5.6 11.1 8.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 - 60.2 - 12.3 Public sector ............... 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.2 0.7 4.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 - - Total maritime ........... 34.0 35.1 49.5 59.0 109.9 88.6 45.4 51.7 43.2 52.0 6.2


Total wholesale trade.. 11.5 6.1 8.9 10.4 12.1 7.9 10.7 9.3 7.8 - 19.3 - 3.0 Energy......................... 3.5 4.0 11.9 51.2 7.2 7.4 7.7 4.0 3.3 15.0 2.0 Oil industry .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - Chemicals ................... 4.4 2.2 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.5 3.3 2.3 1.9 - 46.9 - 8.7 Car manufacturing ...... 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 1.0 2.6 4.7 1.0 0.8 174.0 15.5 Electronics .................. 13.5 13.8 6.6 11.7 8.6 8.9 13.5 6.5 5.4 - 52.1 - 10.0 Metal-working industry 2.8 5.6 7.0 5.5 4.6 9.5 6.9 5.2 4.3 81.4 8.9 Food industry .............. 4.1 3.0 4.2 2.7 2.7 1.5 1.2 1.1 0.9 - 74.0 - 17.5 Other industries........... 4.8 1.7 1.7 4.2 7.6 6.4 5.9 7.6 6.4 57.8 6.7 Total industry .............. 33.5 30.7 34.9 79.7 34.7 39.8 43.1 27.6 23.1 - 17.6 - 2.7 Other services............. 4.4 2.3 1.5 3.1 6.6 5.2 4.4 4.8 4.0 9.3 1.3 Other industries........... 4.5 4.7 13.6 7.7 3.9 5.6 5.2 0.8 0.7 - 81.8 - 21.6 Public sector ............... 13.1 14.7 14.1 15.2 24.2 21.0 11.4 4.4 3.7 - 66.2 - 14.4 Total logistics services 22.0 21.7 29.2 26.0 34.7 31.9 21.0 10.1 8.4 - 54.2 - 10.6 Road transport ........... 9.8 9.2 10.5 14.2 10.2 9.3 6.4 11.2 9.4 14.2 1.9 Other services............. 5.6 6.5 5.1 5.3 6.5 8.1 6.5 9.7 8.1 73.4 8.2 Total transport............. 15.4 15.8 15.6 19.5 16.7 17.5 12.9 20.9 17.5 35.6 4.4

Total non-maritime ... 82.4 74.2 88.5 135.6 98.2 97.0 87.7 67.8 56.8 - 17.7 - 2.7

Direct effects ............. 116.4 109.3 138.0 194.6 208.0 185.6 133.1 119.5 100.0 2.7 0.4

Allocation (p.m.).......... 6.5 11.9 2.7 7.0 17.0 19.2 10.4 9.5 - 46.6 5.6

Source: NBB.

General changes In 2002, the port of Zeebrugge's total investment was slightly greater than that in 1995 (table 38). However, between these two dates, some major changes were observed: an increase between 1997 and 1999, followed by a decline until 2002. The largest increase was recorded in 1998 (+ 41.0 p.c.) and the sharpest fall in 2001 (- 28.3 p.c.). In 2002, investments fell once more, by 10.2 p.c. (- 10.4 p.c. for companies established in the port area), to 119.5 million euro. Changes by cluster The changes in the different clusters reflected the overall changes. The spectacular increase in 1998 (+ 41.0 p.c.) can be explained by the sharp rise in industrial investments (+ 128.5 p.c.), whereas in 1999, it was maritime investments which set the tone (+ 86.3 p.c.). These represented 52.8 p.c. of the amounts invested in the port for that year. 2001 was characterised by a general fall in the amounts invested (- 28.3 p.c.), except in the wholesale trade and industry. The fall continued in 2002 – see supra. Investment fell by 13.5 p.c. in the wholesale trade, by


36.0 p.c. in industry and by 51.9 p.c. in logistics services. On the other hand, in the maritime cluster and transport, investment advanced by 13.8 p.c. and 61.9 p.c. respectively. Changes by sector Following several years of sustained increases in investments at the port of Zeebrugge, the period from 2000 to 2002 was characterised by the opposite trend (table 38). Whereas in 1999, the amounts invested in cargo handling totalled 65.1 million euro, three years later this figure only came to 25.3 million euro. During this period, the port of Zeebrugge's most dynamic sectors in investment terms were cargo handling, fishing, the public sector, the electronics and energy industries (in 1998, record investment by Distrigas), other industries, other services and road transport. Following 2001, a year which was characterised by a pronounced fall in investments, this trend was underlined in 2002, albeit to a lesser degree. At the port of Zeebrugge, the major changes recorded in 2002 for investment in the main sectors were as follows:

• Investment in cargo handling was up by 7.5 p.c. to 25.3 million euro. This trend was underpinned in particular by Sea Ro Terminal;

• Following a somewhat lacklustre 2001, investment in fishing fell by 30.4 p.c., to 7.1 million euro. Sharp falls were recorded at Sea Food Incorporation and Vertrouwen among others;

• Following a year of growth, investment in the electronics industry fell by 52.0 p.c., to 6.5 million euro. Philips Industrial Activities posted the sharpest fall, with investment in 2002 of just 5.4 million euro, as opposed to 13.4 million euro a year earlier;

• Investment in the energy industry fell by 48.4 p.c., to 4.0 million euro. At Electrabel, investments fell by 75.0 p.c. on the previous year, and totalled just 1.3 million euro;

• Investment in other industries decreased by 21.8 p.c. to 10.0 million euro; • Investment in other services grew by 9.5 p.c. to 23.8 million euro. Investment by the SNCB rose by

128.6 p.c. to 4.7 million euro; • Following three rather uneventful years, investment in road transport recovered (+ 74.7 p.c.) to

11.2 million euro. Among those to record increases were D.D. Trans and Vandamme Madoe (which more than doubled its figure of 2001);

• Following several years of public investment, only 4.4 million euro were invested in the port of Zeebrugge in 2002, a decrease to the tune of 63.7 p.c. compared to the previous year. The greater part of this sum (41.7 p.c. of regional investment in the port) was spent on the channel deepening project and on the construction of the quay wall in the Wielingendok.


Investment Top 10 at the port of Zeebrugge in 2002 In 2002, the management of the port of Zeebrugge (Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeevaartinrichtingen) invested considerable sums of money, especially in the outer port (Leopold II dyke).

TABLE 39 INVESTMENT TOP 10 AT THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE IN 2002 (millions of euros)

Ranking

Company name

Sector

Investment

1 MAATSCHAPPIJ VAN DE BRUGSE ZEEVAARTINRICHTINGEN Cargo handliers 13.1

2 SEA-RO TERMINAL Cargo handlers 7.4

3 COBELFRET FERRIES Shipping companies 7.3

4 D.D. TRANS Road transport 6.3

5 COMPAGNIE BELGE D'AFFRETEMENTS Shipping agents 5.4

6 PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES Electronics 5.4

7 SNCB – NMBS Other services 4.7


9 ONDERNEMINGEN JAN DE NUL - ENTREPRISES JAN DE NUL Other industries 3.6

10 VR CAR Other services 2.8

Total 60.3

Source: NBB.



Clusters


(in p.c.)


Solvency

(in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Maritime cluster .. 1.6 4.8 6.6 1.2 1.1 1.3 44.6 46.6 53.2


Wholesale trade.... 4.2 6.2 7.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 22.3 25.2 27.3

Industry ................. 13.5 8.1 - 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.4 31.4 41.2 40.6

Logistics services.. - 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.2 2.0 2.3 49.7 60.1 63.6

Transport............... 2.4 1.8 - 5.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 37.2 36.8 33.7

Weighted average 5.5 5.9 2.8 1.2 1.2 1.3 37.6 43.4 45.2

Source: NBB.

• 2002 was characterised by a very marked fall in the profitability (return on equity) of the companies

dependent on the port of Zeebrugge (table 40). This drop was evident in industry and transport, even though the latter segment was less representative. The maritime cluster, which is highly representative, followed the opposite trend;

• There was little change in liquidity, except for a minor increase in industry; • The solvency ratio continued to grow, underpinned by the maritime cluster.


By sector


Sectors


(in p.c.)


Solvency

(in p.c.)

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Shipping agents and

forwarders .............................. 5.2 9.4 7.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 18.9 25.2 22.5

Cargo handlers ...................... 3.1 4.2 8.3 0.8 0.8 1.0 59.3 61.3 65.7

Shipping companies .............. - 3.7 - 1.2 2.9 3.2 3.7 3.2 71.1 73.6 73.8

Road transport ....................... 5.8 8.3 12.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 37.1 43.1 44.6

Other services........................ 0.8 2.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 30.6 37.8 39.8

Energy.................................... 18.0 9.3 11.4 1.3 1.4 1.7 26.5 48.6 52.0

Oil industry............................. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Chemicals .............................. 24.9 18.8 18.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 41.6 42.8 42.9

Shipbuilding and repair.......... 11.5 12.6 9.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 18.4 23.4 33.8

Car manufacturing ................. 19.5 10.8 11.0 1.6 1.4 2.4 68.2 49.6 66.3

Electronics ............................. 14.5 - 14.9 - 388.9 1.5 1.2 1.8 50.9 47.1 14.0

Metal-working industry........... 2.6 18.2 4.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 29.2 31.3 31.6

Fishing ................................... - 3.5 12.5 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 28.1 27.2 30.8

Food industry ......................... 4.4 - 7.3 - 25.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 25.1 24.5 21.0

Other industries ..................... 5.0 5.0 3.3 1.1 1.2 1.5 31.6 34.7 38.9

Public sector .......................... n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

Weighted average................ 5.5 5.9 2.8 1.2 1.2 1.3 37.6 43.4 45.2

Source: NBB.

• The average profitability of those companies at the port of Zeebrugge fell substantially in 2002. Industry was

directly affected by this drop, mainly metal-working, other and electronics industries (table 41). For the latter, changes can be explained by the drastic financial restructuring programme at Philips Industrial Activities where record losses were recorded (nearly 142 million euro for the Bruges-Zeebrugge site in 2002);

• Liquidity increased slightly in 2002, especially in the electronics industry. The liquidity ratio for Phillips Industrial Activities advanced from 1.1 to 1.8;

• Solvency increased, especially in the maritime cluster – principally in the cargo handling, fishing and other maritime industries sectors: Belgian New Fruit Wharf, Brugse Visrokerij Alloo and Baggerwerken Decloedt en Zoon in particular witnessed a sharp fall in their debts.


4.4.6 Cargo traffic in the port of Zeebrugge in 2002 Summary

TABLE 42 ZEEBRUGGE (thousands of tonnes)

Unloaded

Loaded

Total 2002

Change 2001- 2002

(in p.c.)

Share 2002

(in p.c.)

Containers................ 5,260 6,605 11,865 12.1 36.1

Roll-on/roll-off........... 5,636 8,015 13,651 - 4.9 41.4

Other general cargo. 638 148 786 - 23.8 2.4

Liquid bulk................ 4,042 880 4.922 18.9 14.9

Dry bulk.................... 1,667 45 1,712 - 13.4 5.2

Total......................... 17,243 15,693 32,936 + 2.7 100.0

Source: Vlaamse Havencommissie Annual Report 2002

Following an average annual fall in traffic of 1.2 p.c. since 1998, a 2.7 p.c. increase was observed in 2002, due to growth in the container transport lines (36.0 p.c. of total goods transhipped at Zeebrugge). Given the importance of this activity, the port authorities have for several years been working towards establishing a structure that would enable organisational improvements in container transportation via rail, coastal and inland waters to be made. This initiative, now called PortConnect, enabled 65,000 TEU, or 715,000 tonnes, to be transported in 2002. The decrease in transhipment of dry bulk is attributable to a fall in sand and gravel supplies. The increase in liquid bulk is due to liquid natural gas (LNG) distribution, which grew by 49.4 p.c. The fall observed in Ro-Ro volumes can be explained by the decline in traffic with the United Kingdom, in particular following the restructuring of the P&O fleet. More than 770,000 passengers passed through Zeebrugge port in 2002. For those interested additional information on cargo traffic at the port of Zeebrugge in 2002 is presented in table 69 of annex 8, by categories of goods.

4.5 Breakdown of findings by company size This relates only to the findings for port companies in the narrow sense (before allocation of the findings for companies situated outside the port areas).

TABLE 43 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY PORT IN 2002

Number of companies

Direct value added

(millions of euros)

Direct salaried employment

(in FTE)

Investment

(millions of euros)

Port

Large

companies

SMEs

Large

companies

SMEs

Large

companies

SMEs

Large

companies

SMEs

Antwerp 342 1,112 6,530.2 406.2 53,796 5,676 1,392.0 89.3

Ghent 169 508 2,744.6 184.4 25,656 2,653 768.3 34.1

Ostend 29 224 263.2 50.6 3,097 862 42.1 16.4

Zeebrugge 69 314 554.1 109.1 7,691 1,774 86.9 23.1

Total 609 2,158 10,092.1 750.4 90,241 10,965 2,289.3 162.9

Source: NBB.

The large companies, which in quantitative terms represent only one-fifth of the companies under review, accounted for a total of 89.2 p.c. of overall staff and were responsible for 93.1 p.c. of the VA undertaken in the four ports. They absorbed 93.4 p.c. of the amounts invested. A breakdown by sector is given in annex 6.


5 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN RESULTS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FLEMISH MARITIME PORTS

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 Value added For the companies under review, 2002 was a year marked by recovery, with direct VA growing by 2.9 p.c. (1.6 p.c. in constant terms as against 2001, a level above the growth recorded in Belgium for 2002: 0.7 p.c.). This VA totalled almost 11.0 billion euro. It was also a positive year for production among the suppliers of these companies, since indirect VA increased, all levels taken together, by 4.9 p.c. and, at the first level, by 5.0 p.c. It thus totalled 11.3 billion euro, of which 6.3 billion was at the first level. In 2002, the ratio of indirect VA to direct VA increased by 1.9 p.c., all levels taken together, to reach 102.7 p.c. Total VA – indirect effects included – associated with the ports came to 22.2 billion euro in 2002, or 8.6 p.c. of GDP58. This proportion falls to 4.2 p.c. if only the companies in the study are taken into account (direct effects). This gives an indication as to the importance of the ports for the Belgian economy. From 1995 to 2002, the port of Antwerp, which accounts for 66.5 p.c. of the maritime traffic recorded in the four ports and 62.3 p.c. of the total VA, is the port sector’s engine of development. The increase in « Naties » (cargo handlers) and the chemicals industry (the most important port sector) particularly explains the success of Antwerp, which thus maintained its position as European leader in general cargo, and experienced a 14.2 p.c. increase in container traffic in 2002. At Ghent, after several difficult years, production recovered in the metal-working industry during 2002. Total VA for the port as a whole thus increased by 5.3 p.c., all effects taken together. However, traffic in general cargo failed to keep up with this trend (- 48.4 p.c.). Between 1995 and 2001, the growth in traffic and direct VA was most remarkable at the port of Ostend. Total VA was, however, curbed by the structural fall in subcontracted production. In 2002, production on the part of companies established within the port was in decline, particularly in fishing and the metal-working industry. In contrast, Ro-Ro continued to increase (+ 42.1 p.c.). At the port of Zeebrugge, it was the shipowners, cargo handling and metal-working sectors that were, among others, responsible for the increase in total VA during 2002. Container transport increased by 12.1 p.c., boosted, among other things, by initiatives such as PortConnect.

5.1.2 Employment

During 2002, the gains achieved in the previous year in terms of jobs were lost, direct employment in the four ports thus falling from 106,199 to 102,942 FTE. On average, Antwerp port accounted for 57.6 p.c. of the staff of the sector as a whole reviewed over the period 1995 – 2002: it employed 59,472 FTE in 2002 (direct effects only). Having peaked at 117,959 units in 2001, indirect employment, all levels taken together, fell to 110,242 FTE in 2002, including 62,720 FTE for first-line suppliers. For the four ports in total, the ratio of indirect jobs to direct jobs witnessed its sharpest decline in 2002, falling from 111.1 p.c. to 107.1 p.c., a level slightly less than the average for the period in question. Subcontracting of jobs thus seems to be in slight decline, particularly in Antwerp, where there are numerous indirect jobs associated with the cargo handling sector. A decline in total employment can be noted in the four ports in question. It is fairly limited, if only employment in the ports is considered (direct employment in the port area), as it amounts to - 2.6 p.c. at Antwerp, - 3.5 p.c. at Ghent, - 0.5 p.c. at Ostend and - 3.9 p.c. at Zeebrugge, or - 3.1 p.c. in total. If the allocation of data from maritime companies not located in the ports and indirect effects are taken into account, the fall in total employment in relation to 2001 is, for the same ports, 5.9, 3.2, 0.4 and 4.7 p.c. This decline in employment is, above all, due to the cargo handling, chemicals and car manufacturing industries sectors at Antwerp, the metal-working and, to a

58 Source: NBB, Annual Report 2002, Part 1.


lesser extent, car manufacturing and chemicals industries at Ghent, and the electronics industry at Zeebrugge. At Ostend, job losses in fishing were partly offset by recruitment in the chemicals industry. In 2002, direct port employment accounted for 2.5 p.c. of the total active population59. If indirect employment is also taken into account, this share increases to 5.1 p.c. Apart from a fall in employment in the port companies under review - particularly due to early retirement plans and dismissals - , an increase in part-time work and a continuing fall in the appointment of low-qualified staff, it can be seen that, despite a decline in 2002, the proportion of working time devoted to training remained above the national average. These companies are thus continuing to invest in skills management, focusing on highly qualified staff who require ongoing training. In this context, efforts are being made with regard to women, who formed a relatively higher proportion of those undertaking training in 2002 than in 2001.

5.1.3 Investment

The years 2000 to 2002 were very favourable for port investment. With total investment of more than 1.5 billion euro at Antwerp, 2001 was a record year during the period 1995- 2002. This upward trend began in 2000, after a rather modest 1999. At the port of Antwerp, investments increased by 4.4 p.c. per annum on average. A fall was, however, noted in 2002 in the chemicals and cargo handling sectors. From 1995 to 2002, investment more than doubled at the port of Ghent. As far as 2002 is concerned, the significant increase in amounts invested in the car manufacturing industry and in Stora Enso Langerbrugge should be noted. In 2002, after increasing for several years, investments in the port of Zeebrugge returned to their 1995 level. 2002 was disappointing for the fishing and energy industries. At Ostend, investment fell by 2.9 p.c. per annum on average between 1995 and 2002. This was largely due to the cessation of trading at RMT. 2002 was marked by a fall in investment within the metal-working and fishing industries. In total, the amounts invested in the ports increased by 2.6 p.c. in 2002, to 2.5 billion euro for all of the ports, whilst the investment price index fell by 0.4 p.c. Finally, public services, particularly the Flemish Region, continued to invest in major projects for port development: such was the case of Deurganckdok at Antwerp, Kluizendok at Ghent, the Plassendale 1 industrial zone at Ostend and the outer port at Zeebrugge.

59 Source: NBB, Annual Report 2002, Part 1


5.2 Prospects for the Flemish maritime ports60 Foreign trade is essential for Belgium, given that the equivalent of two-thirds of its GDP is exported. Moreover, the European Union of the 15 relies on the sea for 90 p.c. of its foreign trade and for 43 p.c. of its domestic trade. Total VA for companies in the four ports and their supplier chains (sum of the direct and indirect effects) generally follows the development in foreign trade. In relation to the previous two years’ levels, exports and imports increased very slightly in 2002. However, this did not affect the production level of the companies under review very much despite the correlation between imports and exports and that of the VA of the companies in the study (maritime and non-maritime). The development of the ports is in response to evolutions in foreign trade and their knock-on effect on maritime transport. Political events and technological developments have an impact on transport, on maritime and continental trade and, consequently, on port activities. The economic environment of the ports is marked by an expansion in world trade, along with a growing dispersion of its centres through the internationalisation of production and consumption models and through new transport and distribution requirements. Production, trade and transport are now integrated into a single system. In this context, port activities are no longer restricted to the loading and unloading of vessels: the ports are turning into logistics centres that combine the business lines of production, trade and transport. It is by adapting to this new structure of international trade that the ports are likely to play an active role in trade expansion. This new role for ports can be seen through an analysis of foreign trade and the transport chain. The latter begins at the site of production of raw materials or semi-finished products and continues until the finished product reaches its final destination. In order to rationalise all the activities involved in this process and minimise overall costs, a logistics approach has to be adopted. For each product, operations ought to be carried out where: o the cheapest production factor is available; o a minimum of « downtime » is necessary; o a minimum of transportation is required; o the product can be manufactured in the largest quantities.

It is within this context that projects such as IPG in Ghent or PortConnect in Zeebrugge are relevant, because they enable improvements to be made in the transportation of goods to other ports and the interior of the country, combining various modes of transport. IPG is an example of a project capable of resulting in a multimodal hub (see annex 9). The notion of « Value Added Logistics » (VAL) is also involved. Ports capable of adding value to the goods passing through them possess a major asset in a context of ever-increasing global competition. The « Naties » of Antwerp and Zeebrugge ports play this role completely, since these companies increasingly combine storage activities (bulk or general cargo, hazardous or controlled temperature goods), and activities with a high value added (assembly, packaging, labelling, quality control, route planning, tracking and tracing, customs clearance, etc.). It is a question of « business » type logistics, and this comprises two dimensions: materials management and their physical distribution from place of production to final consumer. In order to develop, the ports must offer sufficient storage space close to the terminals. The warehouses must, to the extent of available resources, be adapted to meet the very stringent monitoring requirements. The overland transport infrastructure also needs to be developed. Given all these challenges, the approach will need to be more commercial than in the past. Concrete answers must be found at the level of infrastructure (vessel access) and superstructure (cranes, warehouses, etc.) facilities, whilst ensuring compliance with increasingly strict European environmental standards. All stakeholders agree on the prime objective of all these policies: to minimise the costs of cargo transit whilst maximising value added. This policy requires, among other things, economies of scale. The port of Antwerp has thus set itself the objective of passing the 140 million tonne mark of cargo transhipped per annum. Ostend is relying heavily on improving its maritime access which should, following renovation of its outer port and

60 See, among others: « Port Marketing », Maritiem Instituut - Universiteit Gent (1998).


development of the new Plassendale 1 industrial zone, enable it to rapidly top the 10 million tonne mark. Ghent and Zeebrugge are following this trend too. All of the ports in the Hamburg - Le Havre range must accept the conditions imposed by a competitive environment. The fact that there is, in reality, only one hinterland for all of the ports equipped with state-of-the-art technology encourages each one of them to maintain, indeed strengthen, its position by aiming at ever-increasing specialisation, as can be seen from the development of different types of cargo traffic that is taking place61. In this context, the significance of economies of scale in terms of production and investment sometimes has the consequence of reducing the number of players and thus undermining competition mechanisms. This is a matter for concern, particularly for the shipowners, as regards container terminals. There is thus a need for the political authorities – and particularly the European Commission – to intervene with corrective measures in order to maintain an economic environment that is favourable to competition and, consequently, to development and technological innovation within the ports of this range. Expansion of the European Union’s ports is at the heart of the overall strategy presented in the Commission’s 2001 White Paper62. According to this, the key to growth in European maritime transport currently lies in two areas: increased capacity and intermodal effectiveness on the part of ports and an opening up of the port services market to potential service providers. The ports under review are aware of these challenges.

61 Details in chapter 4 and annex 8. 62 « European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide ».


List of abbreviations d.w.t. deadweight tonnage

ESA 95 European System of Accounts

EU European Union

FTE Full-time equivalents

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IOT Input-Output Table

n. not available

NACE Statistical nomenclature of economic activities in the European Community

NAI National Accounts Institute

NBB National Bank of Belgium

NSI National Statistical Institute

p.c. per cent

p.m. pro memoria

R&D Research and Development

RMT Regie voor Maritiem Transport

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise

SNCB Belgian National Railway Company

SUT Supply and Use Table

TEN Trans-European Network

TEU Twenty-foot equivalent unit

VA Value added


ANNEX 1: NOTE ON METHODOLOGY

1 Clusters

Numerous studies63 on the economic impact of port activities are structured around the notion of « Maritime Cluster », which denotes all the industries (companies and supplier chains) associated with the ports. It is generally accepted that the port is situated at the intersection of these different activities. This approach gives rise to the study of those industries that define or interact with the port. For the sake of consistency with previous port studies and the Bank’s other publications, and in order to cover port activity as a whole, it was also decided to study other segments. Two clusters are thus considered within this study on Belgian port activity:

TABLE 44 CLUSTERS AND SEGMENTS

• The maritime cluster, which includes branches of the ports themselves, and whose existence is essential to them (management and maintenance, shipping, transhipment, affreightment, piloting, locks, storage, dredging, fishing, maritime services, etc.);

• Four segments that do not have an immediate economic link with port activity but which exhibit a close interdependence with it by virtue of their geographical proximity. These are known as « non-maritime » and include: o the industry segment, comprising the oil, chemicals, metal-working, car manufacturing and electricity

industries, etc.; o the wholesale trade segment, which includes the chain of wholesale commission agents who have

links with the ports (suppliers, trades associated with the above industries, import-export, etc.); o the transport segment, which comprises the different modes transporting goods overland (road, rail,

pipeline, etc.); o the logistics services segment, which groups together companies providing port support services that

are not specifically maritime (computer services, coordination centres, management offices, consultancy, public services, maintenance services, etc.).

Source: NBB.

The companies in the maritime cluster define port activity and have an immediate economic link with the ports. In contrast, the activities of « non-maritime » companies may only have a mediate economic link with them, which requires a geographical presence in the port.

2 Branches and choice of level of aggregation

Some of the branches selected64 for this study are described according to their NACE-Bel classification, in line with the ESA 95 approach (see « European System of Accounts ESA 95 », Eurostat). When a distinction between branches is called for, it is possible to go as far as precision level 5. The definition of SUT65 codes is of particular importance when calculating the indirect effects. The shaded areas in table 45 show the industries which, although basically classified in one of the four segments of the non-maritime cluster, are, according to this analysis grid, partially in the maritime cluster.

63 Including Dutch publications of the Nederlands Economisch Instituut and the Nationale Havenraad, and studies by the

Faculty of Applied Economics at Antwerp University. 64 The complete list of NACE-Bel branches in the study can be found in annex 3. 65 Supply & Use Table. This designation also enables the branches included in these tables, and which correspond to

precision level 2 NACE-Bel codes, to be described in summary form. See also point 5.2 of this appendix 1 and « Input-Output Tables of Belgium in 1995 », NAI, February 2003.


TABLE 45 CLUSTERS

Clusters

NACE codes

Description of Nace code

Sectors

Maritime 63.11.1 Cargo handling in seaports Cargo handlers 63.11.2 Other cargo handling Cargo handlers 63.12.1 Storage and warehousing in cold-storage buildings Cargo handlers 63.12.2 Other storage and warehousing Cargo handlers 63.22.0 Other supporting water transport activities Cargo handlers 61.1 Sea and coastal water transport Shipping companies 61.2 Inland water transport Shipping companies 45.24.1 Dredging Other industries 45.24.2 Other construction of water projects Other industries 35.11 Building and repairing of ships Other industries 35.12 Building and repairing of pleasure and sporting boats Shipbuilding and repair 05.01 Fishing Fishing 05.02 Operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms Fishing 15.20.1 Processing and preserving of fish - production of fresh fish products Fishing 15.20.2 Processing and preserving of fish - production of deep frozen fish products Fishing

63.40.1 Forwarding offices Shipping agents and forwarders

63.40.2 Chartering Shipping agents and forwarders

63.40.3 Ships' agencies Shipping agents and forwarders

63.40.4 Customs agencies Shipping agents and forwarders

63.40.5 Transport mediation Shipping agents and forwarders

63.40.6 Other activities of transport agencies Shipping agents and forwarders

71.22 Renting of water transport equipment Shipping companies 75.22 Defence activities Public sector 51.7 Other wholesale Other services Non-maritime Industry 15 Manufacture of food products and beverages Food industry 23 Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel Oil industry 24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Chemicals industry 27 Manufacture of basic metals Metal-working industry 28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment Metal-working industry 31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. Electronics 32 Manufacture of radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus Electronics 34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers Car manufacturing 35 Manufacture of other transport equipment Other industries 40 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply Energy 14 Other mining and quarrying industries Other industries

20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials Other industries

21 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products Other industries 26 Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Other industries 37 Recycling Other industries 45 Construction Other industries Wholesale trade

50 Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel

Other services

51 Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Other services Transport 60.1 Transport via railways Other services 60.242 Freight transport by road Road transport 60.3 Transport via pipelines Other services Logistics services 63.21 Other supporting land transport activities Other services 63.3 Activities of travel agencies and tour operators; tourist assistance activities n.e.c. Other services 71.32 Renting of construction and civil engineering machinery and equipment Other services 71.34 Renting of other machinery and equipment n.e.c. Other services 74.2 Architectural and engineering activities and related technical consultancy Other services 74.7 Industrial cleaning Other services 74.8 Miscellaneous business activities n.e.c. Other services 75 Public administration, general public service activities; compulsory social security Public sector 92.723 Operation of beach, bicycle, pedal boats, ponies infrastructure and similar Other services

Source: NBB.


Apart from this classification by clusters and branches of the NACE-Bel nomenclature, table 45 also shows the sectors of activity that were mentioned in previous editions of the study. For each port, the change in activity of each cluster and each sector appears in chapter 4. Comments:

• The level of aggregation chosen for the branches noted above depends on the precision required for their definition. For example, branch 45 (construction) calls for precision level 5, since two NACE-Bel level 5 branches (45.241 and 45.242) form part of the maritime cluster while the rest of branch 45 belongs to the non-maritime industries segment. This is not the case for branch 24 (chemicals) which, although aggregated at level 2, falls completely within the industry segment.

• In relation to previous editions, a change has taken place in the classification of the following « public »

companies: the SNCB (Belgian National Railway Company) and port companies. Given that the choice of companies was based on their NACE-Bel branch, and that these companies do not belong to branch 75 of that nomenclature, the SNCB was allocated to the « other services » sector and the port companies to the « cargo handling » sector instead of the public sector.

• For the first time, companies of the public sector (NACE-Bel 75) appear in the classifications by value

added, employment and investment (Top 10 classifications). « Public administration » is taken to mean the whole branch (NACE-Bel 75) excluding the Navy (Defence activities). This distinction was particularly necessary for the ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge.

3 Geographical selection

3.1 Approaches

Two approaches have been selected, depending on whether the company in question forms part of the maritime cluster or not. For non-maritime companies, geographical location within the port area is the determining factor. In fact, it is assumed that these companies are linked to the port precisely because of the location of their activities, even if they do not appear to have an immediate link with the port. All the companies located in the port area in the narrow sense are included in the sample if they belong to a branch of interest to the study, in accordance with the reports previously produced. Definition of the port area in the narrow sense is in accordance with the Royal Decree of 2 February 1993, published on 4 March of that year. A definition of the four port areas in question can be found in annex 2. A complete review of the definition of these four areas was undertaken for this study, in order to take account of political decisions, and environmental/land-use planning changes and agreements. For larger companies established in more than one location, whose head office may not necessarily be located in the port area, the NAI data enable tracing of their centres of operations within the port area in the wider sense. This latter corresponds to the National Statistical Institute’s (NSI) classification and also takes precedence in the choice of companies for two of the maritime cluster branches (see below). Companies in the maritime cluster demonstrate a direct operational link with port activity but are not necessarily situated in the port area. Depending on the definition of their activity, a geographical approach based on the narrow or wider sense has been adopted in the selection of the companies for this cluster (see below).


3.2 Selection

Non-maritime companies These were selected on two conditions only: • That they were part of one of the branches demonstrating an economic link with the ports (for the 2001 study,

the list of these branches included a total of 234 NACE-Bel codes66); • That their head office was located in the port area in the narrow sense, as defined by the Royal Decree of 2

February 1993, for smaller companies established in a single location. With regard to larger companies established in more than one location, their centre(s) of operations established within the port area in the wider sense (according to the NSI code definition) is (are) also be included. The consideration of these centres of operations is carried out using the casuistical method.

Maritime companies These companies are operationally linked to the ports. 24 branches (level 5 NACE codes, given below) were included in this classification. Depending on the definition of these branches, three levels of geographical division were envisaged: • Port area in the narrow sense for companies in branches whose definition requires a port presence:

NACE 05020: Operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms; NACE 15201: Processing and preserving of fish - production of fresh fish products; NACE 15202: Processing and preserving of fish - production of deep frozen fish products; NACE 35120: Building and repairing of pleasure and sporting boats; NACE 45241: Dredging; NACE 45242: Other construction of water projects; NACE 51700: Other wholesale; NACE 63112: Other cargo handling; NACE 63121: Storage and warehousing in cold storage buildings; NACE 63122: Other storage and warehousing; NACE 63404: Customs agencies; NACE 63405: Transport mediation; NACE 63406: Other activities of transport agencies; NACE 75220: Defence activities (Navy).

• Port area in the wider sense (defined as being the area demarcated by the NSI codes to which the ports belong):

NACE 63401: Forwarding offices; NACE 63402: Chartering.

This level of division is called for insofar as most of the forwarding offices and charter companies are located close to but outside the port area in the narrow sense. • The whole national territory for companies in branches where their definition is sufficient to denote an

immediate economic link to port activity, wherever they may be established:

NACE 05010: Fishing; NACE 35110: Building and repairing of ships; NACE 61100: Sea and coastal water transport; NACE 61200: Inland water transport; NACE 63111: Cargo handling in seaports (terminals, « Naties », etc.); NACE 63220: Other supporting water transport activities (development of navigable waterways, maritime transport equipment, etc.), port authorities, etc.; NACE 63403: Ships' agencies; NACE 71220: Renting of water transport equipment.

66 The complete list of NACE-Bel branches included in the study is given in annex 3.


Some companies belonging to this group are thus located outside the ports. In chapter 3, overall figures for VA, employment and investment are given in the form of comparisons between the four port areas and the periphery. This latter groups together the companies not belonging to any port area. Just under 400 small companies from the maritime cluster were thus selected in 2002 despite the fact that they were located outside the port areas. In chapter 4, where the same results are given for each port individually, employment, VA and investment for companies located outside of the ports are allocated by means of the allocation key « weight of each port’s VA by SUT branch ».67 The figures for the allocation, although broken down by sector within the maritime cluster, of which the relevant companies form a part, are given for information.

4 Direct effects

4.1 Value added (VA) at current prices68

• Private companies VA is made up of the following elements taken from the consolidated annual accounts: • Staff costs: headings 62 (remuneration, social security and pensions) and 617 (costs to the enterprise

associated with temporary staff and persons placed at the enterprise's disposal; this heading is, however, only counted after calculation of indirect effects, see comment on the following point)69;

• Depreciation: headings 630 (depreciation of, and other amounts written off formation expenses, intangible and tangible fixed assets), 631/4 (amounts written off) and 635/7 (provisions for liabilities and charges);

• Other costs: heading 640/8 (other operating charges) less heading 649 (operating charges carried to assets as restructuring costs);

• Company results: heading 70/64 (operating profit) or 64/70 (operating loss, negative); • Operating subsidies: heading 740 (negative). The method of calculating VA differs somewhat from that applied in the national accounts, particularly in terms of considering depreciation. For companies established in more than one location, the total VA is distributed by subsidiary, according to NAI data on employment by location. • Public companies70 Here, we proceeded on the basis of surveys and by adding together headings 62 and 617, taking into account possible increases. The VA of public companies is calculated by the sum of staff costs, corrected to take annual amendments to the national accounts into account for the branches in question. 4.2 Employment

• Private companies Average staff numbers for 1995 were obtained on the basis of heading 9090. Since 1996, this has been replaced by headings 9086 (total number of employees at the closing date) and 9087 (average number of employees calculated in FTE). Heading 9097 is added for temporary staff, the costs of which are included in heading 617, defined above. Staff placed at the disposal of port companies comprises almost exclusively blue-collar port workers, who also appear in the staff numbers of their employer: CEPA, CEPG, CEWEZ or CEWO71. This must be taken into account in order to avoid double counting. 67 More detail in point 6 of this annex. 68 The current price approach was chosen because the price deflator values were not established for all SUT branches in

2002. There may be considerable variation in these figures from one branch to another and an overall correction was thus not appropriate.

69 Headings 62 and 617 correspond to employment headings 9087 and 9097 respectively. 70 In contrast with previous editions of the report, the SNCB and port authorities are no longer considered as public companies

given that they are not listed in the National Accounts under the public services branch but under NACE-Bel branches 60.100 and 63.220 respectively.

71 The Centrale der Werkgevers aan de Haven van Antwerpen, Centrale der Werkgevers aan de Haven van Gent, Centrale der Werkgevers aan de Haven van Zeebrugge and Centrale der Werkgevers aan de Haven van Oostende respectively.


Comment: This is why there is a two-stage process: • The approach chosen in chapter 3 (study of variables for all ports) when calculating indirect effects is to

consider temporary port employment as a separate activity (belonging to SUT 74) since the algorithm used is based on data from the national accounts in which the division of employment is given by SUT72, not including heading 9097 and its corollary heading 617 relating to the costs incurred. This is the first stage of presentation of findings, in overall form;

• Then, in order to allocate activities by port and by branch (chapter 4), the employment of temporary staff involved in the « client » companies (primarily from SUT 63, that is, cargo handling) of the four above-mentioned employers is distributed by using headings 9097 and 617 in order to show the real employment situation among companies actually using such staff as objectively as possible.

For companies established in more than one location, employment is allocated by subsidiary according to NAI data on employment within the different centres of operations (reference: NSI code). As this is the only information enabling an allocation to be made at the level of these companies, VA and investment are also allocated according to the same procedure. • Public companies The information is provided by the different bodies or companies in question by means of surveys. 4.3 Investment at current prices

• Private companies The basic rule consists of using heading 8169 of the annual accounts: tangible fixed assets acquired during the course of the financial year (including fixed assets produced). However, if the company has carried out any takeovers (in other words, if there are amounts in heading 829), we use the NAI data are used, which have been corrected to exclude any amounts relating to possible takeovers. Unlike the national accounts method, however, no additional corrections are made for the « disinvestments » noted annually. For companies established in more than one location, total investment is allocated in the same manner as VA and employment (reference: NSI code). • Public companies The information is provided by the different bodies or companies in question by means of surveys. 4.4 The social balance sheet

The study presents a series of data relating to the social balance sheet for 2002. A comparison has also been made with 2000 and 2001. While the previous edition of the study restricted its analysis of the social balance sheet to large companies that were representative of port activity, in this study all companies for which sufficient social balance sheet data are available for the years 2000 to 2002 have been analysed in this section. A constant sample is analysed and the results enable us to carry out comparisons with findings shown in the Social Balance Sheet for the whole economy73. This relates among others to those filing their annual accounts based on the full presentation.

72 Supply & Use Table. This designation also enables the branches included in these tables, and which correspond to NACE-

Bel precision level 2 codes, to be described in abbreviated form. 73 Social Balance Sheet 2002 (NBB, Economic Review 2003/4).


TABLE 46 HEADINGS OF THE SOCIAL BALANCE SHEET

o Employees on the personnel register – average number during the financial year:

o 1001 Full-time

o 1002 Part-time

o 1003 Total in FTE

o Employees on the personnel register - number on the closing date of the financial year:

o 1051 Full-time

o 1052 Part-time

o 1053 Total in FTE

o 1203 Total in FTE – men

o 1213 Total in FTE - women

o 1343 Total in FTE – employees

o 1323 Total in FTE – workers

o Temporary staff and persons placed at the enterprise's disposal

o 1501 Temporary staff – average number (*)

o 1502 Staff placed at the enterprise's disposal (*)

o Personnel movements during the financial year – entries

o 2053 Number of employees added to the personnel register during the financial year, in FTE

o 2103 Idem, on contract for an indefinite period (*)

o 2203 Idem, men – primary education (*)

o 2213 Idem, men – secondary education (*)

o 2223 Idem, men – higher non-university education (*)

o 2233 Idem, men – university education (*)

o 2303 Idem, women – primary education (*)

o 2313 Idem, women – secondary education (*)

o 2323 Idem, women – higher non-university education (*)

o 2333 Idem, women – university education (*)

o Personnel movements during the financial year - contract-terminations

o 3053 Number of employees recorded in the personnel register whose contract-termination date has been entered

during the financial year, in FTE

o 3103 Idem, on contract for an indefinite period (*)

The results of some additional headings are given in relation to previous years:

o Employees on the personnel register – number of hours actually worked during the financial year

o 1011 Full-time

o 1012 Part-time

o 1013 Total in FTE

o Employees on the personnel register – personnel costs during the financial year

o 1021 Full-time

o 1022 Part-time

o 1023 Total in FTE

o Temporary staff and persons placed at the enterprise's disposal

o 1511 Temporary staff –number of hours actually worked (*)

o 1512 Persons placed at the enterprise's disposal – number of hours actually worked (*)

o 1521 Temporary staff – costs for the enterprise (*)

o 1522 Staff placed at the enterprise's disposal – costs for the enterprise (*)

o Staff movements during the financial year – departures based on reason for contract termination

o 3403 retirement (*)


o 3413 early retirement (*)

o 3423 dismissal (*)

o 3433 other reasons (*)

o Training provided to employees during the financial year

o 5801 Number of male employees involved in training initiatives at the expense of the employer

o 5802 Number of actual training hours followed by male employees

o 5803 Costs for the enterprise of the training followed by men

o 5811 Number of female employees involved in training initiatives at the expense of the employer

o 5812 Number of actual training hours followed by female employees

o 5813 Costs for the enterprise of the training followed by women

Source: NBB.

The headings marked with an (*) relate only to companies filing their accounts based on the full presentation. The information for 2002 is presented in a format similar to that of previous editions in annex 7. 4.5 Financial ratios

Three ratios are given by port for the period 2000 - 2002, at the level of clusters and « sectors ». Their numerators and denominators are detailed in the data base, in order to be able to present these ratios at any level of aggregation. We have used the average approach on the basis of overall data, because the sample is of limited size. The level of detail in the analysis is high (see the « sectors »), and this increases the volatility of the figures observed. 4.5.1 Return on equity after tax (ratio 9 of the Central Balance Sheet Office):

This ratio gives the relationship between the year’s results and equity capital: it relates to the company’s capacity to maximize returns on its available financial resources: that is, to generate profit. The denominator must be strictly positive, and the data must correspond to a 12-month period (financial year). This ratio is calculated as follows: • Heading 70/67 or 67/70 (profit or loss for the period respectively) divided by heading 10/15 (equity capital) 4.5.2 Liquidity in broad sense (ratio 13 of the Central Balance Sheet Office):

The liquidity ratio expresses the company’s capacity to mobilise, within the required time limit, sufficient cash to enable it to meet its short-term commitments. The Liquidity in broad sense (also called current ratio) is just one of the ratios relating to liquidity and is defined as follows: • Sum of headings 3 (stocks and contracts in progress), 40/41 (amounts receivable within one year), 50/53

(cashflow investments) 54/58 (cash at bank and in hand) and 490/1 (deferred charges and accrued income), divided by the sum of headings 42/48 (amounts payable within one year) and 492/3 (accrued charges and deferred income).

This ratio is another way of representing net working capital74. The net working capital is positive if the Liquidity in broad sense is greater than one. 4.5.3 Solvency (ratio 19 of the Central Balance Sheet Office):

This is the ratio of equity capital to total liabilities, which provides information on the company’s independence from external funding and, thus, its self-financing capacity. This ratio reflects the company’s capacity to meet all of its financial commitments: debt repayments within the agreed deadlines, interest payments and payments resulting from « off-balance-sheet » liabilities. It is calculated as follows: • Heading 10/15 (equity capital) divided by heading 10/49 (total liabilities). 74 Net working capital is calculated as follows: current assets less short-term debts.


4.6 Size of companies

While previous editions of the report examined the presentation based on the way in which the annual accounts were filed in order to establish the distinction between large companies and SMEs, priority is now given to the objective criteria defined below. It transpires, in fact, that almost 45 p.c. of SMEs file their accounts based on the full presentation75. The criterion of presentation is therefore insufficient.

The following are considered to be « large » in the terms of the Companies Code76:

• companies with an annual average staff of more than 100 employees;

• companies that meet more than one of the following criteria:

o average annual number of employees: over 50 units;

o annual turnover (exc. VAT): over 6,250,000 euro;

o balance sheet total: over 3,125,000 euro.

In chapter 4, a breakdown of findings between SMEs and large companies is presented in summary form, by port. Details by sector are given in annex 6.

5 Indirect effects

5.1 National accounts

The national accounts are a detailed and quantified overall representation of the national economy within the accounting framework. It is structured according to two approaches: by product and by income. The first is a by branch approach, grouping together all companies producing a similar category of output (chemicals, food, textiles, electricity, car manufacturing industries, etc.). The data for each branch are suitable for studies covering product markets or « input - output » analyses. The second approach relates to sectors. This information is useful for studying patterns in terms of investment, financing, wage policy, etc. This notion of sector should not be confused with the « sectors » that are considered in this report, companies grouped together in accordance with previous editions of the study. The analysis carried out favours the product approach, which enables interdependence between branches to be studied and the indirect effects of the activities of the companies of one branch and, by summation, all branches, to be assessed. The Belgian national accounts are drawn up in line with the definitions of the « European System of National and Regional Accounts 1995 » (ESA 1995)77, which replaced the ESA 1979 and came into force in 1998. For Belgium, the introduction of ESA 1995 was an opportunity to adopt a new benchmark methodology. New statistical sources, whether from administrative information or surveys, were used and a complete register of companies established. These efforts resulted in the setting up of a consistent base of statistical information that ensures an exhaustive evaluation of high quality of the national accounts.

75 Source: article on non-financial companies (Economic Review 2003/4). 76 Article 15 of the Companies Code (« Code des sociétés » in French and « Wetboek van vennootschappen » in Dutch). For further

explanation, see the Central Balance Sheet Office website: http://www.nbb.be/BA/ 77 ESA 1995 was adopted in the form of an EU Council Regulation (EC) No. 2223/96 dated 25 June 1996 and its application is obligatory for all

Member States as from the reference year, 1998. For further information on the methodology, please see the National Accounts website:

http://www.bnb.be/DQ/F/national_acc_1.htm.


5.2 Estimation of indirect effects

5.2.1 Method:

The Supply and Use Tables available up to 199978 enable indirect employment related to port activity to be calculated. In fact, the different branches of port activity create indirect employment through the purchases the companies make from subcontractors. The Supply and Use Table is divided into two parts: the use table which, for each branch gives the inputs used and the supply table, which gives the production of each branch, broken down by product group. On the basis of this table, the subcontracting branches for a given branch can be established (for example, « port cargo handling »), along with their levels of dependence. To do this, we check in the use table to see which inputs are used in port cargo handling and then look in the supply table to see what industries produce the inputs used. The industries that supply the port handling branch, along with the amount of their deliveries, thus appear. The rate of dependence is calculated as the proportion of subcontracting within the total turnover of the subcontracting branch. By applying this rate of dependence to the supplier(s)’ total employment, indirect employment is obtained. The same approach is adopted for the calculation of indirect VA. Application of this method to the industries covered by the study is done at two levels of calculation: level 1 and the infinite level. Level 1 takes account only of first-level suppliers. These first-level suppliers themselves obtain supplies from other suppliers (level 2) and so on ad infinitum. In this way, the infinite level is obtained, which enables the total economic impact in terms of jobs and VA for the selected companies to be evaluated. It thus becomes possible to compare total indirect employment created and the direct employment of the branches included in the sample. The ratio obtained enables the relative importance of the port-related supplier chain in employment terms79 to be estimated. This line of reasoning can also be applied to the calculation of value added. 5.2.2 Calculations

The latest data available for the Input-Output Tables date from 1995. Priority was thus given to the most recent information relating to use and supply for 1999. On the basis of these SUT data, input-output (branch-branch) ratios were calculated, as explained above. Using these relationships in terms of inter-branch deliveries, reduced to the proportions of the sample, indirect employment and indirect value added can be established for each branch. To this end, the matrix calculus is used. As has already been pointed out, a detailed description of the algorithm used here may be found in the NBB Working Paper n°38 of June 2003. For further information of a technical nature, please contact the NBB's Microeconomic Analysis service. Using certain important assumptions mentioned below, this method enables indirect VA and indirect employment to be estimated. The result of these calculations, in terms of indirect employment, is formulated in terms of the number of persons employed. Direct employment is expressed in full-time equivalents (FTE). In order to establish certain comparisons, the result of indirect employment is therefore converted into FTE by applying a correction that corresponds to the ratio of the average annual number of hours worked per employee80 to the number of annual hours of service represented by one FTE. For 2002, this equivalence factor measured 0.904. In other words, taking into account the different part-time systems in existence, a Belgian employee on average works the equivalent of 90.4 p.c. of a FTE.

78 The SUT data for 2000 were only published after the calculations for this study were carried out. The figures for 1995, 1997 and 1999 were

used to calculate the indirect effects for the years 1995 - 96, 1997 - 98 and 1999 – 2002 respectively. 79 See also the example given in chapter 4 of Working Paper no. 38 dated June 2003 devoted to the car manufacturing (pp. 55

to 75) or « The ICT sector in Belgium ». 80 For the Belgian economy as a whole, this number of hours corresponds to the ratio between heading 1013 and the sum of

headings 1001 and 1002 of the social balance sheet. See table 46, which gives these headings (point 4.4 of this annex).


It should be pointed out that the indirect effects caused by the public companies in the sample were not calculated. 5.2.3 Assumptions

1. It is assumed that the interdependence between companies of the branches included in the port study is in line with that of the economy as a whole, which is given in the supply and use tables. In fact, we take the share of each SUT branch associated with the companies under review and then apply the algorithm. This is based on the Input-Output matrix updated using the supply and use tables produced by year and by SUT branch in the national accounts;

2. Cross-border transits are assumed to have no influence on the result. This assumption is important as it is assumed that each branch has indirect effects limited to the other branches of the national economy;

3. It is assumed that a product is bought from all branches that are capable of producing it, that is, that deliveries are shared homogeneously between companies of the branches presenting an interdependence between one another;

4. It is assumed that inputs are homogeneously shared between outputs, whatever the level of indirect effect envisaged (from level 1 to the infinite level). In fact, it is assumed that each input involved in the production process is used for all the outputs created;

5. The variation in inter-branch dependency rates is negligible over the space of a few years. We are thus using SUT inter-branch relations defined in 1995 for 1995 and 1996, those defined in 1997 for 1997 and 1998, and those defined in 199981 for 1999 to 2002. Given that the latest rates available for inter-branch dependency date from 1999, information on indirect effects in terms of VA and employment by sector is only shown for the years 1995 to 1999 (annex 5). For the period under review as a whole, only the totals per port are given in chapters 3 and 4.

6 Structure of the presentation of results

Chapter 3 gives the findings in terms of employment, value added and investment for the ports as a whole. Some maritime companies that are not established in the port areas were nonetheless included: they are covered by a separate section. In chapter 4, the findings relating to them are allocated by port, in order to evaluate their actual overall economic impact. Further clarifications: • For companies of the maritime cluster selected from outside the port areas, direct employment, direct VA and

direct investment have been allocated to the different ports according to the allocation key relating to the weight in direct VA that each one has in the ports as a whole by SUT branch. This allocation key for port π, branch β and year α is calculated as the ratio of direct VA achieved in port π for branch β and year α to the sum of the direct VA achieved by all the ports in branch β during year α;

• The Input-Output tables only exist at national level. A means of allocating indirect VA and indirect employment by port must therefore be found. This allocation by branch is calculated according to the same pattern as the allocation of direct effects observed in each port on the basis of the sample. This allocation is calculated according to the same keys: for each SUT branch, the port’s share in total direct employment and direct VA. If port π accounts for x p.c. of the ports' total of direct VA of branch β during year α, then x p.c. of the indirect VA associated with branch β will be attributed to port π for the same year α. The same reasoning applies to employment, but in this case the share of the port in the total employment of the branch is taken. In fact, it is assumed that the more a port creates direct VA or direct employment for a given branch, the more it will create indirect VA and indirect employment;

• For VA and employment, once the distinction between direct (from the port area and to be allocated) and indirect effects has been established, direct VA and direct employment can be defined as the sum of that which is observed in the ports and their surroundings (by allocation). The concepts of total VA and total employment express the sum of both direct and indirect dimensions, whatever the level of branch grouping (by cluster or by « sector » approach). In order to analyse the changes observed in 2002, the distinction between direct and indirect effects is also made. On the other hand, total investment is defined as the sum of investment specific to the companies established in the ports plus investment attributed to the ports by allocation;

• The percentage changes given in the analysis in chapters 3 and 4 are calculated on an annual basis. If, for example, total VA associated with activity at the port of Antwerp increased by 4.0 p.c. in 2002, this therefore

81 The data in the supply and use tables for 2000 were, indeed, published only after the calculations included in this study had

been made.


means that this value grew by 4.0 p.c. in relation to the previous year, 2001. To calculate the average annual change over a given period, the geometric mean is used;

• The analyses relating to the financial ratios and the presentation of findings by company size only cover the companies in the sample. Indirect effects are therefore not taken into account. These findings are given by port in the wider sense, that is, after allocation of figures relating to companies established outside of the port areas (still using the VA key);

• The social balance sheet relates to the companies of a constant sample for the period from 2000 to 2002 (without taking indirect effects into account). This is included in an overall presentation, all ports taken together (point 3.5).

7 Impact of the new methodology on the results

• VA

GRAPH 9 COMPARISON OF VA RESULTS COMPARED WITH THE PREVIOUS EDITION (millions of euros)

n.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(in m

illions

of eu

ro)

Direct value added(methodology 2001)

Direct value added(methodology 2002)

Indirect value added(methodology 2002)

Source: NBB.

• Employment

GRAPH 10 COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT RESULTS WITH THE PREVIOUS EDITION

(FTE)

n.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(in F

TE)

Direct employment(methodology 2001)

Direct employment(methodology 2002)

Indirect employment(methodology 2002)

Source: NBB.


• Explanations

The present sample includes more companies than the 2001 edition of the report. In fact, the previous methodology considered 1,920 companies compared to 3,356 in the new methodology. In addition to account being taken of small enterprises established outside of the port areas (maritime cluster), selection by branch is meant to be the most exhaustive possible. Below are some examples which aim to explain the changes observed in graphs 9 and 10.

• Some companies have been added to the sample following adoption of the new methodology: o Registration of wholesale companies such as Ostend Pharma and Oswald De bruycker

(Ostend); o Registration of all the companies active in the building and repair of vessels, such as Nieuwe

Scheldewerven; o Companies established within the port zone which were not taken into account previously, such

as Daikin Europe in Ostend; o Registration of all the port workers in Antwerp (C.E.P.A.).

• Pursuant to the new methodology, other companies are no longer taken into account in the sample: o Foreign companies which do not file accounts with the Central Balance Sheet Office, such as

P&O North Sea Ferries and Hoverspeed Holyman; o Certain non-profit institutions (NPIs) like De Oesterbank.

8 Comments

• Some companies that are not required to file annual accounts at the Central Balance Sheet Office are not considered in this study (this is the case, for example, for the self-employed and some partnerships, non-profit institutions and foreign companies).

• The methodology is based on an examination of micro-economic data. If at all possible, any error or omission should be corrected before analysis;

• The grouping of branches is based on an analysis of each company’s NACE-Bel code. It is the dominant branch that is selected for this allocation, on the basis of the company’s core business. As this may change over time, the classification may also change or, inversely, no longer correspond to the company’s economic reality, through failure to change the code. This, like the assumptions underlying the assessment of indirect effects, calls for caution when examining the findings;

• Companies resulting from the breaking up of groups that were already part of the sample are also included in the study, provided they satisfy the selection criteria given in point 3.2 of this annex;

• The importance of the public administrations is under-estimated given that only those services that are of interest to the port(s) are taken into account. A list of public companies or administrations included in this study is given in annex 4.


ANNEX 2: PORT AREAS

These port areas have been defined in accordance with the Royal Decree of 2 February 1993, signed on the occasion of the transfer of port ownership from the State to the Flemish Region. The definition of the four port areas is given in Dutch in the appendix to this Royal Decree, issued on 4 March 1993 in the Belgian Law Gazette82.

1 Definition of the Antwerp port area

« De begrenzing van de haven van Antwerpen wordt in dit Koninklijk Besluit omschreven als volgt : Rechteroever - ten noorden, begrensd door de rijksgrens met Nederland vanaf de grens met de gemeente Beveren (het

midden van de stroom) tot, oostwaarts, de snijding met de gemeentegrens Antwerpen-Stabroek - ten oosten, de grens Antwerpen-Stabroek tot de rijksgrens A12, verder zuidwaarts tot rijksgrens N144a

(Ekersesteenweg) via rijksweg N180 (Noorderlaan) tot de noordelijke oever van het Albertkanaal. Oostwaarts tot rijksweg N129 (Minister Delbekelaan) tot aan de Schijnpoort, de Slachthuislaan, Bredastraat, Viaduct Express, Ellermanstraat tot rijksweg N1 (Italiëlei) zuidelijk tot de Tunnelplaats, Ankerrui, Brouwersvliet tot de Tavernierskaai (waterkerende muur inbegrepen)

- ten zuiden, langsheen de waterkerende muur (inbegrepen) van de Scheldekaaien tot Schelde nr. 8. Vervolgens de Generaal Armstronglaan tot aan de spoorlijn Antwerpen-Zuid-Boom, verder tot de Krugerbrug, Naftaweg, de Grenspacht, de grenzen van lot B en J van de Petroleuminstellingen Zuid en de vroegere stadsgrens Antwerpen-Hoboken tot de grens Antwerpen-Zwijndrecht in de stroom

- ten westen, de grens Antwerpen-Zwijndrecht in de Scheldebedding. Vervolgens de linkerscheldeoever op Antwerps grondgebied tot aan de grens Zwijndrecht-Antwerpen ter hoogte van Pijp Tabak aan de Schelde. Vanaf hier noordwaarts in het midden van de stroom, de gemeentegrens met Zwijndrecht en Beveren tot aan de rijksgrens met Nederland.

Linkeroever - ten oosten, de grens van de Stad Antwerpen vanaf de rijksgrens met Nederland tot de snijding met rijksweg nr.

617 - ten zuiden, de rijksweg nr. 617, vanaf voormeld snijpunt met de provincieweg nr. 356 - ten westen, de westelijke grens van de groenzone - ten noorden, de rijksgrens met Nederland Sinds het opmaken van deze beschrijvende lijst kan het huidige havengebied op bepaalde plaatsen afwijken als gevolg van nieuwe politieke, ruimtelijke of ecologische afspraken en evoluties. »

2 Definition of the Ghent port area

« Onder het begrip havenzone wordt verstaan, het gebied afgebakend door de Koning Boudewijnlaan ten westen van het kanaal Gent-Terneuzen, de Belgisch-Nederlandse grens ten noorden, de Kennedylaan ten oosten en de Dampoort ten zuiden. De bedrijven-zones ten noorden van de R4 en ten oosten van de Kennedylaan, gelegen op Gents grondgebied, worden ook tot de havenzone gerekend. Het totale havenareaal beslaat een oppervlakte van 2.668 hectaren, waarvan 511 hectaren wateroppervlakte. »

3 Definition of the Ostend port area

« De havenzone van Oostende werd in dit KB omschreven als de zone begrensd door: - ten noorden: de Noordzee; - ten oosten: de grens tussen Oostende en Bredene (van de zeedijk tot de Noord-Ede); vervolgens de Noord-Ede

tussen de Spuikom en de Blauwe Sluis; en tot slot de Rijksweg N320 (Plassendaalsesteenweg) tussen de Blauwe Sluis en de Plassendalebrug;

82 Named « Moniteur belge » in French and « Belgisch Staatsblad » in Dutch.


- ten zuiden: het kanaal Plassendale-Nieuwpoort, tot aan de spoorlijn; - ten westen: de spoorlijn Oostende-Brugge tussen het kanaal Plassendale-Nieuwpoort en het Zwaaidok;

vervolgens de Konterdamstraat (langs de spoorlijn) tot de snijding met de N34 (Koninklijke Baan); de N34 tot de snijding met de N334; en tot slot de N334 tot aan de snijding met de zeedijk (d.w.z. de Vindictivelaan en de Visserskaai, zodat zowel de Mercator jachthaven als het Montgomerydok in de zone begrepen zijn).

Deze zone wordt verder aanschouwelijk voorgesteld op de bijgevoegde kaart. Er dient op gewezen dat hierin het zuidelijk deel van de industriezone (d.i. gelegen ten zuiden van de spoorlijn Oostende - Brugge en langs de E40-autosnelweg) niet inbegrepen is. »

4 Definition of the Bruges-Zeebrugge port area

« De havenzone wordt daar omschreven als het gebied begrensd door: - ten noorden : de Noordzee, met als grens de westelijke en oostelijke dam van de Buitenhaven en de verbindingslijn tussen de

damkoppen; - ten oosten : de De Maerestraat tussen de Zeedijk en de Kustlaan N34; de rijksweg N300 tot snijding met N376; de rijksweg N376 tot snijding met R30; - ten zuiden : de rijksweg R30 tussen de snijding met N 376 en de Krakelebrug; - ten westen : de spoorweg tussen de Krakelebrug en de snijding met het verlengde van de geplande N31 a; de N31 a tussen voormelde snijding en de Kustlaan N34; de Baron de Maerelaan tussen de Kustlaan N34 en de Zeedijk. »

5 Ports' maps

• Port of Antwerp • Port of Ghent • Port of Ostend • Port of Zeebrugge


Haven van Antwerpen - Port d’Anvers - Port of Antwerp


Haven van G

ent - Port de Gand - Port of G

hent


Haven van Oostende - Port d'O

stende - Port of Ostend


Haven van Zeebrugge - Port de Zeebrugge - Port of Zeebrugge


ANNEX 3: LIST OF NACE-BEL BRANCHES

TABLE 47 LIST OF BRANCHES

Suttak

Nace-bel

Cluster

Sector

Definition

05A1 05010 MA VI Fishing 14A1 14211 IN AI Quarrying of sand pits 14A1 14300 IN AI Mining of chemical and fertiliser minerals 14A1 14500 IN AI Other mining and quarrying n.e.c. 15A1 15131 IN VO Production of fresh products made of meat and canned meat 15B1 15201 MA VI Processing and preserving of fish - production of fresh fish products 15B1 15202 MA VI Processing and preserving of fish - production of deep frozen fish products 15C1 15320 IN VO Manufacture of fruit and vegetable juice 15D1 15420 IN VO Manufacture of refined oils and fats 15E1 15510 IN VO Fabrication of dairies and cheese making 15E1 15520 IN VO Manufacture of ice cream 15F1 15610 IN VO Manufacture of grain mill products 15G1 15710 IN VO Manufacture of prepared feeds for farm animals 15H1 15812 IN VO Small-scale bread and pastry bakehouses 15I1 15840 IN VO Manufacture of cocoa; chocolate and sugar confectionery 15J1 15890 IN VO Manufacture of other food products n.e.c. 15K1 15910 IN VO Manufacture of distilled potable alcoholic beverages 17A1 17110 IN AI Preparation and spinning of cotton-type fibres

17A1 17150 IN AI Throwing and preparation of silk including from noils and throwing and texturing of synthetic or artificial filament yarns

17B1 17402 IN AI Manufacture of other textile articles 20A1 20101 IN AI Sawmilling and planing of wood 20A1 20102 IN AI Impregnation of wood 20A1 20300 IN AI Manufacture of builders' carpentry and joinery 20A1 20400 IN AI Manufacture of wooden containers 21A1 21121 IN AI Manufacture of paper 21A1 21210 IN AI Manufacture of corrugated paper and paperboard and of containers of paper and paperboard 21A1 21250 IN AI Manufacture of other articles of paper and paperboard n.e.c. 23A1 23200 IN PE Manufacture of refined petroleum products 24A1 24110 IN CH Manufacture of industrial gases 24A1 24120 IN CH Manufacture of dyes and pigments 24A1 24130 IN CH Manufacture of other inorganic basic chemicals 24A1 24140 IN CH Manufacture of other organic basic chemicals 24A1 24151 IN CH Manufacture of fertilisers 24A1 24160 IN CH Manufacture of plastics in primary forms 24A1 24170 IN CH Manufacture of synthetic rubber in primary forms 24B1 24200 IN CH Manufacture of pesticides and other agro-chemical products 24C1 24300 IN CH Manufacture of paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printing ink and mastics 24D1 24410 IN CH Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products 24D1 24421 IN CH Manufacture of medicines 24E1 24512 IN CH Manufacture of cleaning and polishing preparations 24E1 24520 IN CH Manufacture of perfumes and toilet preparations 24F1 24620 IN CH Manufacture of glues and gelatines 24F1 24640 IN CH Manufacture of photographic chemical material 24F1 24660 IN CH Manufacture of other chemical products n.e.c. 25A1 25120 IN CH Retreading and rebuilding of rubber tyres 25A1 25130 IN CH Manufacture of other rubber products 25B1 25210 IN CH Manufacture of plastic plates, sheets, tubes and profiles 25B1 25220 IN CH Manufacture of plastic packing goods 25B1 25230 IN CH Manufacture of builders' ware of plastic 25B1 25240 IN CH Manufacture of other plastic products 26A1 26110 IN AI Manufacture of flat glass 26A1 26120 IN AI Shaping and processing of flat glass 26C1 26510 IN AI Manufacture of cement 26D1 26610 IN AI Manufacture of concrete products for construction purposes 26D1 26620 IN AI Manufacture of plaster products for construction purposes


Suttak

Nace-bel

Cluster

Sector

Definition

26D1 26630 IN AI Manufacture of ready-mixed concrete 26D1 26700 IN AI Cutting, shaping and finishing of stone 26D1 26820 IN AI Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products n.e.c. 27A1 27100 IN ME Manufacture of basic iron and steel and of ferro-alloys (ECSC)* 27A1 27220 IN ME Manufacture of steel tubes 27B1 27350 IN ME Other first processing of iron and steel n.e.c.; production of non-ECSC* ferro-alloys 27B1 27422 IN ME First processing of aluminium 27B1 27510 IN ME Casting of iron 28A1 28110 IN ME Manufacture of metal structures and parts of structures 28A1 28120 IN ME Manufacture of builders' carpentry and joinery of metal 28A1 28210 IN ME Manufacture of tanks, reservoirs and containers of metal 28A1 28220 IN ME Manufacture of central heating radiators and boilers 28A1 28401 IN ME Forging of metal 28B1 28510 IN ME Treatment and coating of metals 28B1 28520 IN ME General mechanical engineering 28C1 28741 IN ME Manufacture of fasteners and screw machine products 28C1 28742 IN ME Manufacture of chain 28C1 28743 IN ME Manufacture of springs 28C1 28755 IN ME Manufacture of other fabricated metal products n.e.c. 29A1 29110 IN AI Manufacture of engines and turbines, except aircraft, vehicle and cycle engines 29A1 29120 IN ME Manufacture of pumps and compressors 29B1 29220 IN ME Manufacture of lifting and handling equipment 29B1 29230 IN ME Manufacture of non-domestic cooling and ventilation equipment 29B1 29241 IN ME Manufacture of packaging machinery 29B1 29245 IN ME Manufacture of filter equipment 29B1 29247 IN AI Manufacture of other general purpose machinery n.e.c. 29C1 29403 IN ME Manufacture of machine- tools for woodworking 31A1 31100 IN EL Manufacture of electric motors, generators and transformers 31A1 31200 IN EL Manufacture of electricity distribution and control apparatus 32A1 32100 IN EL Manufacture of electronic valves and tubes and other electronic components

32A1 32300 IN EL Manufacture of television and radio receivers, sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus and associated goods

33A1 33103 IN AI Manufacture of orthopaedic appliances

33A1 33201 IN AI Manufacture of electrical instruments and appliances for measuring, checking, testing and navigating

34A1 34100 IN AU Manufacture of motor vehicles 34B1 34201 IN AU Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor vehicles and trailers 34B1 34300 IN AU Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor vehicles and their engines 35A1 35110 MA SB Building and repairing of ships 35A1 35120 MA SB Building and repairing of pleasure and sporting boats 35A1 35200 IN AI Manufacture of railway and tramway locomotives and rolling stock 36C1 36630 IN AI Other manufacturing n.e.c. 37A1 37100 IN AI Recycling of metal waste and scrap 37A1 37200 IN AI Recycling of non-metal waste and scrap 40A1 40100 IN EN Production and distribution of electricity 40A1 40200 IN EN Manufacture of gas; distribution of gaseous fuels through mains 45A1 45111 IN AI Demolition and wrecking of buildings 45A1 45112 IN AI Earth moving 45B1 45211 IN AI Construction of individual houses 45B1 45213 IN AI Construction of buildings for industrial, commercial or agricultural use 45B1 45214 IN AI Construction of tunnels, bridges, viaducts 45B1 45215 IN AI Construction of pipelines, telecommunication- and high tension conduit 45B1 45220 IN AI Erection of roof covering and frames 45C1 45230 IN AI Construction of highways, roads, airfields and sport facilities 45C1 45241 MA AI Dredging 45C1 45242 MA AI Other construction of water projects 45C1 45250 IN AI Other construction work involving special trades 45D1 45310 IN AI Installation of electrical wiring and fittings 45D1 45320 IN AI Insulation work activities 45D1 45331 IN AI Installation of heating, air conditioning and ventilation 45D1 45332 IN AI Other plumbing 45D1 45340 IN AI Other building installation


Suttak

Nace-bel

Cluster

Sector

Definition

45E1 45421 IN AI Joinery installation in wood and synthetic material 45E1 45422 IN AI Joinery installation in metal 45E1 45441 IN AI Painting 45E1 45500 IN AI Renting of construction or demolition equipment with operator 50A1 50101 CO AD Wholesale of motor vehicles 50A1 50102 CO AD Agents involved in the sale of motor vehicles 50A1 50103 CO AD Retail sale of motor vehicles 50A1 50200 CO AD Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles 50A1 50301 CO AD Wholesale of motor vehicle parts and accessories 50B1 50500 CO AD Retail sale of car manufacturing fuel

51A1 51110 CO AD Agents involved in the sale of agricultural raw materials, live animals, textile raw materials and semi-finished goods

51A1 51120 CO AD Agents involved in the sale of fuels, ores, metals and industrial chemicals 51A1 51140 CO AD Agents involved in the sale of machinery, industrial equipment, ships and aircraft 51A1 51170 CO AD Agents involved in the sale of food, beverages and tobacco 51A1 51180 CO AD Agents specialising in the sale of particular products or ranges of products n.e.c. 51A1 51190 CO AD Agents involved in the sale of a variety of goods 51A1 51210 CO AD Wholesale of grain, seeds and animal feeds 51A1 51310 CO AD Wholesale of fruit and vegetables 51A1 51332 CO AD Wholesale of edible oils and fats 51A1 51340 CO AD Wholesale of alcoholic and other beverages 51A1 51381 CO AD Wholesale of fish, crustaceans and molluscs 51A1 51384 CO AD Specialised wholesale of other food 51A1 51391 CO AD Wholesale of deep-frozen foods 51A1 51392 CO AD Other non-specialised wholesale of food, beverages and tobacco 51A1 51410 CO AD Wholesale of textiles 51A1 51421 CO AD Wholesale of clothing, accessories and fur 51A1 51430 CO AD Wholesale of electrical household appliances and radio and television goods 51A1 51442 CO AD Wholesale of wallpaper and cleaning materials 51A1 51460 CO AD Wholesale of pharmaceutical goods 51A1 51478 CO AD Wholesale of other household goods n.e.c. 51A1 51510 CO AD Wholesale of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels and related products 51A1 51520 CO AD Wholesale of metals and metal ores 51A1 51531 CO AD Wholesale of wood 51A1 51532 CO AD Wholesale construction materials and sanitary equipment 51A1 51541 CO AD Wholesale of hardware 51A1 51550 CO AD Wholesale of chemical products 51A1 51562 CO AD Wholesale of other intermediate products n.e.c. 51A1 51570 CO AD Wholesale of waste and scrap 51A1 51610 CO AD Wholesale of machine tools 51A1 51620 CO AD Wholesale of construction machinery 51A1 51640 CO AD Wholesale of office machinery and equipment 51A1 51651 CO AD Wholesale of electric and electronic equipment 51A1 51652 CO AD Wholesale of other machinery for use in industry n.e.c. 51A1 51700 MA AD Other wholesale 52A1 52230 CO AD Retail sale of fish, crustaceans and molluscs 52A1 52461 CO AD Retail sale of hardware, paints and glass with sale surface less than 400m2 52A1 52481 CO AD Retail sale of fuels 52A1 52482 CO AD Retail sale of sport goods and camping equipment 52A1 52487 CO AD Retail sale of office machinery and equipment and computers 52A1 52498 CO AD Other retail sale in specialised stores n.e.c. 52A1 52502 CO AD Retail sale of second-hand goods 52A1 52621 CO AD Retail sale of food via stalls and markets 52A1 52740 CO AD Repair n.e.c. 55B1 55301 CO AD Restaurants 55B1 55302 CO AD Fast food, snack bars 55B1 55522 CO AD Taking care of parties and receptions 60A1 60100 TR AD Transport via railways 60B1 60230 TR AD Other land passenger transport 60C1 60241 TR AD Furniture removal by road 60C1 60242 TR WE Freight transport by road 60C1 60300 TR AD Transport via pipelines


Suttak

Nace-bel

Cluster

Sector

Definition

61A1 61100 MA RE Sea and coastal water transport 61B1 61200 MA RE Inland water transport 62A1 62200 TR AD Non-scheduled air transport 63B1 63111 MA GO Cargo handling in seaports 63B1 63112 MA GO Other cargo handling 63B1 63121 MA GO Storage and warehousing in cold-storage buildings 63B1 63122 MA GO Other storage and warehousing 63B1 63210 LO AD Other supporting land transport activities 63B1 63220 MA GO Other supporting water transport activities 63A1 63301 LO AD Travel agencies 63B1 63401 MA SE Forwarding offices 63B1 63402 MA SE Chartering 63B1 63403 MA SE Ships' agencies 63B1 63404 MA SE Customs agencies 63B1 63405 MA SE Transport mediation 63B1 63406 MA SE Other activities of transport agencies 64A1 64120 TR AD Courier activities other than national post activities 64B1 64200 TR AD Telecommunications 66A2 66031 LO AD Direct non-life insurance operations 67A1 67130 LO AD Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation n.e.c. 67A1 67201 LO AD Insurance brokers and agents 67A1 67202 LO AD Damage and risk experts 67A1 67203 LO AD Other activities auxiliary to insurance 70A1 70111 LO AD Development of real estate (residential) 70A1 70113 LO AD Development of real estate (infrastructure) 70A1 70201 LO AD Letting of houses, except. welfare lodging 70A1 70203 LO AD Letting of non-residential buildings 70A1 70311 LO AD Mediation in buying, selling and letting of real estate 70A1 70321 LO AD Management of residential buildings 70A1 70322 LO AD Management of other real estate 71A1 71100 LO AD Renting of automobiles 71A1 71210 LO AD Renting of other land transport equipment 71A1 71220 MA RE Renting of water transport equipment 71B1 71320 LO AD Renting of construction and civil engineering machinery and equipment 71B1 71340 LO AD Renting of other machinery and equipment n.e.c. 71B1 71408 LO AD Renting of personal and household goods n.e.c. 72A1 72200 LO AD Software consultancy and supply 73A1 73100 LO AD Research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering 74A1 74124 LO AD Tax consultancy 74A1 74131 LO AD Market research 74B1 74142 LO AD Other business and management consultancy activities 74B1 74151 LO AD Management activities of holding companies 74B1 74152 LO AD Coordination centres 74C1 74203 LO AD Technical consultancy and engineering activities 74C1 74302 LO AD Other technical testing and analysis 74E1 74502 LO AD Temporary employees agencies and providers of temporary personnel 74F1 74601 LO AD Security activities 74F1 74700 LO AD Industrial cleaning 74F1 74820 LO AD Packaging activities 74F1 74835 LO AD Other administrative activities n.e.c. 74F1 74849 LO AD Other business activities n.e.c. 75B3 75220 MA PU Defence activities 90A1 90001 LO AI Effluent water collection and purification 90A1 90002 LO AI Collection and processing of household refuse 90A1 90003 LO AI Collection and processing of agricultural and industrial refuse 91A1 91110 LO AD Activities of business and employers organisations 92D1 92613 LO AD Operation of other sports accommodations 92D1 92723 LO AD Operation of beach, bicycle, pedal boats, ponies infrastructures and similar

Source: NBB.


Legend

Key

Cluster

MA Maritime Non-maritime, of which: CO Wholesale trade IN Industry LO Logistics services TR Transport Key

Sector

SE Shipping agents and forwarders GO Cargo handlers RE Shipping companies WE Road transport AD Other services EN Energy PE Oil industry CH Chemicals SB Shipbuilding and repair AU Car manufacturing EL Electronics ME Metal-working industry VI Fishing VO Food industry AI Other industries PU Public sector


ANNEX 4: LIST OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS

TABLE 48 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS

Port Names

AN-GN-OO-ZB FOD Financiën - Administratie der Douane en Accijnzen

AN-GN-ZB FOD Binnenlandse Zaken - Federale politie

OO-ZB FOD Defensie - Belgische Marine

AN-GN FOD Economie, KMO, Middenstand en Energie - Bestuur Kwaliteit en Veiligheid - Metrolologische Dienst

AN-GN-OO-ZB FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer - Bestuur van Maritieme Zaken en Scheepvaart - Scheepvaartcontrole

ZB FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer - Bestuur van Maritieme Zaken en Scheepvaart - Zeevaart Scheepsmeting

AN-GN FOD Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de voedselketen en Leefmilieu - Gezondheidsinspectie der haven

AN-OO FOD Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de voedselketen en Leefmilieu - Instituut voor Veterinaire Keuring

AN FOD Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Sociaal Overleg - Pool van de Zeelieden ter Koopvaardij

OO-ZB Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap - Departement voor Zeevisserij

GN

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap - Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur - Administratie Milieu, Natuur, Land

en Waterbeheer - Afdeling Milieuvergunningen

AN

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap - Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur - Administratie Waterwegen en

Zeewezen - Afdeling Maritieme Toegang

AN


Zeewezen - Afdeling Zeeschelde

AN-GN-OO-ZB


Zeewezen - Loodswezen DAB

AN-OO-ZB


Zeewezen - Afdeling Vloot

AN


Zeewezen - Afdeling Beleid Havens, Waterwegen en Zeewezen

GN


Zeewezen - Afdeling Bovenschelde

OO-ZB


Zeewezen - Afdeling Scheepvaartbegeleiding

OO-ZB


Zeewezen - Afdeling Waterwegen Kust

ZB

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap - Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur - Beheer- en Exploitatieteam

Schelderadar

AN Provincie Antwerpen - Havencentrum Lillo

AN-GN-ZB Stad - Brandweer Havenafdeling

OO Stad Oostende

AN-GN-ZB VDAB - Aanwervingslokaal Havenarbeiders

ZB VDAB - Centrum voor Maritieme Opleidingen

Source: BNB.

Legend Key

Port

AN ANTWERP

GN GHENT

OO OSTEND

ZB ZEEBRUGGE


ANNEX 5: BREAKDOWN OF INDIRECT EFFECTS BY SECTOR: 1995 - 1999

1 PORT OF ANTWERP

1.1 VA

TABLE 49 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT VALUE ADDED AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 1999

(millions of euros)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders ........................ 596.1 620.6 656.9 502.5 545.6

Cargo handlers................................................... 1,125.3 992.1 1,039.0 821.2 951.2

Shipping companies........................................... 512.9 542.0 783.3 735.6 691.6

Other services .................................................... 2.7 2.9 2.6 3.1 4.9

Fishing................................................................ 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Shipbuilding and repair ...................................... 2.7 3.8 3.1 3.8 4.3

Other industries.................................................. 27.3 31.3 26.7 20.5 30.6

Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total maritime................................................... 2,267.6 2,192.8 2,511.6 2,086.7 2,228.7


Total wholesale trade ......................................... 204.9 219.3 290.4 276.2 443.1

Energy ................................................................ 49.9 49.2 57.1 48.5 48.7

Oil industry ......................................................... 573.2 587.5 513.9 527.9 521.7

Chemicals........................................................... 788.2 864.7 1,051.5 1,139.2 1,196.6

Car manufacturing.............................................. 851.3 920.8 920.2 1,138.2 1,035.4

Electronics.......................................................... 4.4 4.3 5.1 6.9 6.3

Metal-working industry ....................................... 51.7 52.9 61.6 54.3 61.6

Food industry...................................................... 63.9 64.1 80.4 58.2 52.5


Total industry...................................................... 2,519.6 2,702.9 2,874.3 3,166.5 3,155.0

Other services .................................................... 487.8 504.2 527.1 555.9 613.2


Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total logistics services ....................................... 512.7 524.9 551.6 583.4 652.6

Road transport.................................................... 33.3 33.2 34.9 36.9 40.1

Other services .................................................... 50.4 60.8 61.2 63.9 62.0

Total transport .................................................... 83.7 94.0 96.2 100.7 102.1

Total non-maritime........................................... 3,320.9 3,541.1 3,812.6 4,126.8 4,352.9

Indirect effects.................................................. 5,588.4 5,733.9 6,324.2 6,213.6 6,581.5

Source: NBB.


1.2 EMPLOYMENT

TABLE 50 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT AT ANTWERP FROM 1995 TO 1999

(FTE)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders......................... 7,156 6,022 6,345 5,938 5,703

Cargo handlers ................................................... 13,513 14,919 14,257 13,584 12,486

Shipping companies ........................................... 4,288 4,459 5,835 6,427 5,537

Other services..................................................... 38 35 33 40 62

Fishing ................................................................ 13 0 0 0 5

Shipbuilding and repair....................................... 138 105 78 96 101

Other industries .................................................. 189 157 136 154 165

Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total maritime ................................................... 25,335 25,698 26,683 26,238 24,059


Total wholesale trade ......................................... 1,500 1,602 1,860 1,906 2,229

Energy ................................................................ 1,076 1,073 1,069 961 915

Oil industry.......................................................... 5,687 5,806 4,728 5,030 5,011

Chemicals ........................................................... 7,729 8,111 8,976 9,426 10,538

Car manufacturing .............................................. 15,384 15,674 14,883 15,426 15,437

Electronics .......................................................... 69 73 76 96 110

Metal-working industry........................................ 1,224 1,222 1,078 1,007 1,217

Food industry...................................................... 654 715 779 578 473

Other industries .................................................. 1,325 1,502 1,578 1,747 1,975

Total industry ...................................................... 33,147 34,175 33,167 34,271 35,677

Other services..................................................... 4,137 4,464 5,027 5,434 5,766


Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total logistics services........................................ 4,306 4,594 5,172 5,671 6,149

Road transport.................................................... 420 419 358 399 424

Other services..................................................... 848 847 1,151 880 907

Total transport..................................................... 1,268 1,266 1,509 1,279 1,331

Total non-maritime ........................................... 40,222 41,638 41,707 43,128 45,387

Indirect effects .................................................. 65,557 67,335 68,390 69,366 69,446

Source: NBB.


2 PORT OF GHENT

2.1 VA

TABLE 51 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT VALUE ADDED AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 1999

(millions of euros)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster


Cargo handlers................................................... 150.7 159.1 153.8 137.0 156.4


Other services .................................................... 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7

Fishing................................................................ 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.2



Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total maritime................................................... 203.1 203.8 222.2 204.3 243.3



Energy ................................................................ 75.6 68.9 64.5 37.7 40.1

Oil industry ......................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chemicals........................................................... 84.0 90.5 101.9 105.9 128.1

Car manufacturing.............................................. 810.6 807.5 920.2 927.2 1 037.9

Electronics.......................................................... 72.2 99.1 64.4 69.8 61.4


Food industry...................................................... 64.0 77.7 92.0 83.7 83.6


Total industry...................................................... 1,777.4 1,869.9 1,958.0 2,004.7 2,272.2

Other services .................................................... 92.0 83.9 98.0 149.9 63.5


Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Road transport.................................................... 13.3 11.3 12.7 14.2 15.3

Other services .................................................... 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.8

Total transport .................................................... 14.8 12.8 14.1 15.9 17.1

Total non-maritime........................................... 2,211.9 2,340.0 2,409.1 2,609.2 2,825.3

Indirect effects.................................................. 2,415.0 2,543.8 2,631.2 2,813.5 3,068.5

Source: NBB.


2.2 EMPLOYMENT

TABLE 52 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT AT GHENT FROM 1995 TO 1999

(FTE)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster

Shipping agents and forwarders......................... 529 406 531 551 518

Cargo handlers ................................................... 1,313 1,179 1,262 1,362 1,320

Shipping companies ........................................... 362 245 373 579 1,468

Other services..................................................... 8 9 8 7 10

Fishing ................................................................ 3 4 5 8 11



Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total maritime ................................................... 2,231 1,850 2,188 2,519 3,340


Total wholesale trade ......................................... 1,640 1,812 1,952 1,999 2,265

Energy ................................................................ 1,632 1,503 1,206 747 754

Oil industry.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals ........................................................... 1,173 1,201 1,326 1,467 1,658

Car manufacturing .............................................. 10,140 10,440 9,835 10,970 12,540

Electronics .......................................................... 993 906 818 826 810

Metal-working industry........................................ 4,857 4,757 4,870 5,088 5,504

Food industry...................................................... 780 803 793 820 810

Other industries .................................................. 3,177 3,212 3,102 2,991 3,163

Total industry ...................................................... 22,751 22,822 21,951 22,909 25,240

Other services..................................................... 1,600 1,450 1,456 1,456 1,576


Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total logistics services........................................ 1,726 1,596 1,647 1,679 1,823

Road transport.................................................... 142 129 124 145 138

Other services..................................................... 122 147 240 218 220

Total transport..................................................... 264 275 364 363 358



Source: NBB.


3 PORT OF OSTEND

3.1 VA

TABLE 53 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT VALUE ADDED AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 1999

(millions of euros)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster


Cargo handlers................................................... 0.9 1.0 7.3 5.5 4.6

Shipping companies........................................... 45.7 34.0 - 79.2 47.7 3.8

Other services .................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fishing................................................................ 28.4 33.7 43.6 45.7 40.1



Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total maritime................................................... 89.0 82.0 - 4.9 116.5 73.8



Energy ................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3

Oil industry ......................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chemicals........................................................... 12.5 18.4 18.2 16.3 18.3

Car manufacturing.............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Electronics.......................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Food industry...................................................... 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.9 4.1


Total industry...................................................... 51.6 71.1 71.3 72.8 90.5

Other services .................................................... 33.4 26.7 17.4 25.0 119.8


Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Road transport.................................................... 4.8 4.6 5.1 5.6 5.7

Other services .................................................... 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.1

Total transport .................................................... 5.8 5.6 5.6 6.2 5.8

Total non-maritime........................................... 105.6 119.1 112.0 126.4 245.5

Indirect effects.................................................. 194.6 201.0 107.1 242.9 319.3

Source: NBB.


3.2 EMPLOYMENT

TABLE 54 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT AT OSTEND FROM 1995 TO 1999

(FTE)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster


Cargo handlers ................................................... 16 11 42 45 53

Shipping companies ........................................... 3,023 3,275 3,135 2,584 1,873

Other services..................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Fishing ................................................................ 396 447 433 468 457



Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total maritime ................................................... 3,587 3,857 3,792 3,277 2,563


Total wholesale trade ......................................... 261 241 295 285 339

Energy ................................................................ 0 0 0 7 5

Oil industry.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals ........................................................... 220 310 327 354 427

Car manufacturing .............................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Electronics .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Metal-working industry........................................ 276 389 446 518 654

Food industry...................................................... 23 25 17 21 75


Total industry ...................................................... 964 1,192 1,190 1,279 1,428

Other services..................................................... 387 403 252 314 365


Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total logistics services........................................ 387 403 252 349 404

Road transport.................................................... 50 48 41 54 52

Other services..................................................... 17 16 18 18 7

Total transport..................................................... 66 64 59 73 59



Source: NBB.


4 PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE

4.1 VA

TABLE 55 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT VALUE ADDED AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 1999

(millions of euros)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster


Cargo handlers................................................... 59.8 48.4 66.2 55.7 79.0


Other services .................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1

Fishing................................................................ 23.9 21.2 27.3 26.1 30.8



Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total maritime................................................... 165.7 181.0 175.1 148.4 225.8



Energy ................................................................ 10.4 10.5 11.4 20.8 22.7

Oil industry ......................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chemicals........................................................... 15.7 17.0 20.2 21.1 26.7

Car manufacturing.............................................. 2.5 4.1 5.0 6.2 7.3

Electronics.......................................................... 46.4 49.5 31.2 26.9 33.3


Food industry...................................................... 28.1 20.0 36.4 35.4 26.7


Total industry...................................................... 201.0 199.1 183.0 197.6 212.0

Other services .................................................... 15.2 13.6 12.0 12.7 12.8


Public sector....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Road transport.................................................... 12.8 15.9 15.4 17.4 21.1

Other services .................................................... 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.7

Total transport .................................................... 15.3 18.8 18.9 20.9 25.8

Total non-maritime........................................... 267.2 276.1 269.6 294.0 325.6

Indirect effects.................................................. 432.9 457.1 444.7 442.4 551.5

Source: NBB.


4.2 EMPLOYMENT

TABLE 56 SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT AT ZEEBRUGGE FROM 1995 TO 1999

(FTE)

Sectors

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Maritime cluster


Cargo handlers ................................................... 716 919 1,029 1,067 1,140

Shipping companies ........................................... 561 339 336 425 546

Other services..................................................... 2 2 2 3 1

Fishing ................................................................ 362 324 414 359 403



Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total maritime ................................................... 2,225 2,126 2,306 2,305 2,501


Total wholesale trade ......................................... 464 418 570 692 785

Energy ................................................................ 97 95 117 306 309

Oil industry.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals ........................................................... 208 223 254 275 320

Car manufacturing .............................................. 53 46 54 39 55

Electronics .......................................................... 897 872 476 383 403

Metal-working industry........................................ 441 434 404 454 435

Food industry...................................................... 433 352 448 505 463


Total industry ...................................................... 2,744 2,664 2,298 2,612 2,714

Other services..................................................... 544 425 240 276 321


Public sector ....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Total logistics services........................................ 765 589 416 456 534

Road transport.................................................... 152 181 164 191 223

Other services..................................................... 145 142 405 116 129

Total transport..................................................... 297 322 569 307 352



Source: NBB.


ANNEX 6: BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY COMPANY SIZE IN 2002

TABLE 57 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY CLUSTER AT THE PORT OF ANTWERP

Number of companies

Direct value added (in millions of euros)


(in FTE)

Investment (in millions of euros)

Clusters

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Maritime .......................... 140 468 1,285.6 196.9 17,315 2,749 394.2 23.3

Non-maritime

Wholesale trade............... 54 219 725.2 47.6 1,967 687 49.3 10.3

Industry ............................ 80 89 3,987.0 49.2 26,760 948 753.7 21.8

Logistics services............. 47 279 365.2 70.7 4,949 648 112.2 28.0

Transport.......................... 21 57 167.1 41.9 2,805 644 82.6 5.8

Total................................. 342 1,112 6,530.2 406.2 53,796 5,676 1,392.0 89.3

Source: NBB.

Remark: This relates only to the findings for port companies in the narrow sense.

TABLE 58 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY SECTOR AT THE PORT OF ANTWERP

Number of companies



(in FTE)


Sectors

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

Shipping agents and forwarders .......................... 77 265 308.1 122.3 4,451 1,874 62.3 6.4 Cargo handlers .................. 44 86 833.7 35.9 11,583 443 191.5 7.8 Shipping companies .......... 11 63 32.5 19.0 328 143 53.5 5.7 Road transport ................... 17 50 57.3 35.8 739 565 4.8 5.2 Other services.................... 97 535 1,055.8 129.5 6,456 1,498 155.6 40.5 Energy................................ 1 0 183.9 0.0 1,119 0 6.4 0.0 Oil industry......................... 6 3 929.2 0.3 3,145 0 109.0 0.0 Chemicals .......................... 34 5 2,140.6 3.3 11,565 12 537.9 13.3 Shipbuilding and repair ...... 2 15 9.5 10.4 233 140 0.8 1.0 Car manufacturing ............. 4 9 480.4 8.0 7,012 196 72.1 0.5 Electronics ......................... 2 1 7.9 0.4 61 8 0.2 0.0 Metal-working industry....... 10 19 88.5 11.4 1,542 235 2.8 0.9 Fishing ............................... 0 3 0.0 0.1 0 2 0.0 0.1 Food industry ..................... 3 0 40.4 0.0 648 0 7.7 0.0 Other industries ................. 33 58 269.0 29.9 2,811 559 117.5 8.0 Public sector ...................... 1 0 93.4 0.0 2,104 0 69.9 0.0

Total................................... 342 1,112 6,530.2 406.2 53,796 5,676 1,392.0 89.3

Source: NBB.



TABLE 59 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY CLUSTER AT THE PORT OF GHENT

Number of companies


Direct salaried employment(in FTE)


Clusters

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

PME

Maritime.......................... 28 100 156.9 43.4 1,576 545 44.1 4.1

Non-maritime

Wholesale trade .............. 35 142 551.1 41.3 2,225 625 56.1 7.4

Industry............................ 83 96 1,916.9 42.5 20,112 810 626.1 6.8

Logistics services ............ 17 141 76.6 35.5 1,076 326 21.7 10.2

Transport ......................... 6 29 43.2 21.7 667 347 20.2 5.6

Total................................ 169 508 2,744.6 184.4 25,656 2,653 768.3 34.1

Source: NBB.


TABLE 60 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY SECTOR AT THE PORT OF GHENT

Number of companies



(in FTE)


Sectors

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

PME

Shipping agents and forwarders ........................... 9 29 51.2 9.3 673 150 5.6 1.1 Cargo handlers.................... 14 30 100.8 21.4 842 250 33.4 1.3 Shipping companies............ 1 25 2.1 5.3 23 52 4.7 0.3 Road transport .................... 4 24 18.3 20.0 205 309 2.6 5.1 Other services ..................... 52 291 639.0 80.2 3,439 1,006 82.2 18.2 Energy ................................. 3 1 150.1 0.0 841 0 4.6 0.4 Oil industry .......................... 1 0 7.0 0.0 56 0 0.1 0.0 Chemicals............................ 16 7 217.7 4.2 1,864 39 38.0 0.3 Shipbuilding and repair ....... 0 9 0.0 3.6 0 57 0.0 0.6 Car manufacturing............... 6 1 515.4 0.8 6,602 21 132.6 0.0 Electronics........................... 4 2 57.7 0.7 1,079 21 9.6 0.0 Metal-working industry ........ 18 29 709.3 16.6 6,870 294 123.6 2.6 Fishing................................. 0 1 0.0 1.9 0 8 0.0 0.6 Food industry....................... 9 6 87.6 0.9 663 11 18.6 0.0 Other industries................... 31 53 177.8 19.5 2,216 436 300.1 3.6 Public sector........................ 1 0 10.5 0.0 283 0 12.5 0.0 Total............................. 169 508 2,744.6 184.4 25,656 2,653 768.3 34.1

Source: NBB.



TABLE 61 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY CLUSTER AT THE PORT OF OSTEND

Number of companies



(in FTE)


Clusters

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

Maritime .......................... 7 51 32.7 15.4 506 219 6.0 1.8

Non-maritime

Wholesale trade............... 5 60 11.7 10.0 161 205 2.1 3.9

Industry ............................ 8 31 159.1 9.3 1,578 180 15.8 1.0

Logistics services............. 5 71 46.9 6.4 722 93 13.5 7.4

Transport.......................... 4 11 12.8 9.5 130 165 4.7 2.3

Total................................. 29 224 263.2 50.6 3,097 862 42.1 16.4

Source: NBB.


TABLE 62 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY SECTOR AT THE PORT OF OSTEND

Number of companies



(in FTE)


Sectors

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies SMEs

Large companies SMEs

Large companies

Shipping agents and forwarders ........................... 0 8 0.0 3.7 0 42 0.0 0.5 Cargo handlers ................... 1 8 3.6 2.5 28 42 3.9 0.4 Shipping companies ........... 1 1 - 3.8 0.0 15 1 0.8 0.0 Road transport .................... 2 9 9.2 9.3 66 160 2.2 1.2 Other services..................... 10 134 30.8 16.3 374 303 5.3 11.8 Energy................................. 1 1 0.6 0.1 4 0 0.0 0.0 Oil industry.......................... 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chemicals ........................... 4 1 35.5 0.2 405 3 7.2 0.1 Shipbuilding and repair ....... 1 9 0.5 2.6 3 56 0.2 0.1 Car manufacturing .............. 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Electronics .......................... 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Metal-working industry........ 2 6 117.0 1.6 1,120 31 7.6 0.1 Fishing ................................ 1 23 2.6 6.4 69 77 0.7 0.8 Food industry ...................... 1 1 6.1 0.6 50 13 0.9 0.1 Other industries .................. 3 23 27.8 7.4 213 136 1.2 1.3 Public sector ....................... 2 0 33.4 0.0 752 0 12.0 0.0

Total............................. 29 224 263.2 50.6 3,097 862 42.1 16.4

Source: NBB.



TABLE 63 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY CLUSTER AT THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE

Number of companies



(in FTE)


Clusters

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

Maritime.......................... 22 78 217.3 30.0 3.780 435 38.0 4.2

Non-maritime

Wholesale trade .............. 16 95 19.5 21.7 283 394 2.4 6.9

Industry............................ 20 55 239.1 33.1 2.332 545 23.4 4.2

Logistics services ............ 5 64 38.2 7.0 674 81 6.4 3.7

Transport ......................... 6 22 40.0 17.3 623 319 16.7 4.2

Total................................ 69 314 554.1 109.1 7.691 1.774 86.9 23.1

Source: NBB.


TABLE 64 BREAKDOWN OF FINDINGS BY SECTOR AT THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE

Number of companies



(in FTE)


Sectors

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

SMEs

Large companies

Shipping agents and forwarders ........................... 7 22 13.8 9.7 149 144 6.3 1.4 Cargo handlers.................... 6 21 93.0 3.1 1,185 38 21.2 0.8 Shipping companies............ 1 9 2.9 4.8 37 45 7.3 0.2 Road transport .................... 4 20 24.8 15.7 340 276 7.1 4.1 Other services ..................... 21 162 43.7 30.3 722 520 13.4 10.4 Energy ................................. 2 0 69.1 0.0 330 0 4.0 0.0 Oil industry .......................... 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Chemicals............................ 3 3 27.2 1.2 264 21 2.1 0.3 Shipbuilding and repair ....... 1 4 3.8 2.6 65 49 0.2 0.1 Car manufacturing............... 1 1 15.0 0.1 50 1 1.0 0.0 Electronics........................... 1 3 55.3 3.0 595 61 5.4 1.1 Metal-working industry ........ 7 16 39.2 11.2 486 189 4.3 0.9 Fishing................................. 3 19 5.9 8.9 122 145 1.7 1.5 Food industry....................... 2 8 6.2 6.2 150 117 0.3 0.8 Other industries................... 8 26 66.9 12.3 951 167 8.4 1.6 Public sector........................ 2 0 87.2 0.0 2,244 0 4.4 0.0

Total.................................... 69 314 554.1 109.1 7,691 1,774 86.9 23.1

Source: NBB.



ANNEX 7: SOCIAL BALANCE SHEET IN 2002

TABLE 65 SOCIAL BALANCE SHEETS IN 2002 BY SECTOR

costs

(2)

1522

35.1

304.1

4.8

7.9

10.7 0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

8.1

0.0

6.4

0.0

1.0

1.2

0.0

379.9

hour

s actu

ally

worke

d (1)

1512

1.08

9.03

0.14

0.23

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.21

0.00

0.18

0.00

0.02

0.05

0.00

11.21

Perso

ns pl

aced

at th

e en

terpr

ise's

dispo

sal

numb

er

1502

646

5,08

4 81

137

161 0 2 3 0

143 0 99

0 18

26 0

6,401

costs

(2

)

1521

11.2

31.4 0.2

2.7

17.3 0.6

2.4

10.6 2.4

14.5 3.2

7.5

1.1

4.2

9.2

0.0

118.3

hour

s actu

ally

worke

d (1)

1511

0.58

1.24

0.01

0.13

0.75

0.03

0.07

0.37

0.10

0.58

0.13

0.31

0.06

0.20

0.37

0.00

4.92

Hire

d tem

pora

ry sta

ff

numb

er

1501

299

679 3 72

399 14

40

200 56

324 67

155 32

104

209 0

2,653

total

(in F

TE)

1023

282.9

763.9

40.0

96.2

627.6

189.3

385.7

986.2

28.7

700.4

100.2

622.8

29.7

63.3

331.1

0.0

5,248

.0

part-

time

1022

22.6

99.3 2.2

2.4

48.3 7.9

18.3

46.9 0.9

29.7 8.1

14.3 1.1

4.7

9.6

0.0

316.4

Pers

onne

l cos

ts (2

)

full-t

ime

1021

260.3

664.6

37.8

93.8

579.3

181.3

367.3

939.3

27.8

670.6

92.1

608.5

28.6

58.6

321.5

0.0

4,931

.7

total

(in F

TE)

1013

9.9

20.0 1.1

4.0

19.9 2.9

5.6

20.1 1.1

19.7 2.7

16.0 1.0

2.1

10.5 0.0

136.7

part-

time

1012

0.7

0.6

0.1

0.1

1.7

0.1

0.3

1.0

0.0

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.0

6.5

Hour

s actu

ally w

orke

d (1)

full-ti

me

1011

9.2

19.4 1.1

3.9

18.2 2.8

5.3

19.1 1.1

18.9 2.5

15.6 0.9

2.0

10.2 0.0

130.2

total

(in

FTE

)

1003

5,808

14,10

7

643

2,228

12,58

9

2,193

3,201

13,29

0

764

13,82

3

1,806

10,52

1

666

1,417

6,785

0

89,84

1

part-

time

1002

609

389 77

90

1,811

116

220

831 40

829

228

344 33

184

265 0

6,064

AVER

AGE

NUMB

ER O

F EM

PLOY

EES

Numb

er

full-ti

me

1001

5,399

13,82

4

604

2,168

11,50

7

2,102

3,042

12,72

6

741

13,26

4

1,628

10,28

5

645

1,297

6,610

0

85,84

2

Secto

r

Shipp

ing ag

ents

and f

orwa

rder

s.....

........

.......

Carg

o han

dlers.

........

........

........

........

........

......

Shipp

ing co

mpan

ies....

........

........

........

........

...

Road

tran

spor

t......

........

........

........

........

........

.

Othe

r ser

vices

........

........

........

........

........

........

Ener

gy....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

Oil in

dustr

y.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

Chem

icals

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

Shipb

uildin

g and

repa

ir.....

........

........

........

.....

Car m

anufa

cturin

g.....

........

........

........

........

....

Elec

tronic

s......

........

........

........

........

........

........

Metal

-wor

king i

ndus

try....

........

........

........

.......

Fishin

g.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Food

indu

stry.

........

........

........

........

........

........

Othe

r indu

stry..

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Publi

c sec

tor....

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Tota

l......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.

Bron: NBB.

(1) The hours actually worked in terms of millions of hours. (2) The personnel costs and costs in terms of millions of euros.


Table 65 SOCIAL BALANCE SHEETS IN 2002 BY SECTOR (continued)

costs

(2)

5813

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.0

1.4

0.7

1.2

2.1

0.0

2.1

0.6

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.4

0.0

10.2

hour

s (1)

5812

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.00

0.04

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.21

Wom

en

num

ber

5811

512

541 55

37

1,055

276

332

968 3

1,194

502

688 8

106

297 0

6,573

costs

(2)

5803

0.5

1.9

0.2

0.1

9.2

4.3

10.3

19.6 0.1

16.8 1.2

15.3 0.0

0.4

4.5

0.0

84.5

hour

s (1)

5802

0.01

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.22

0.05

0.15

0.27

0.00

0.36

0.03

0.33

0.00

0.01

0.10

0.00

1.59

TRAI

NING

Men

numb

er

5801

703

2,047

172

192

4,390

1,259

2,395

8,725

56

10,00

0

1,139

4,112

11

554

2,288

0

38,04

2

worke

r

1323

532

10,98

2

188

1,718

5,349

0

510

5,959

624

10,64

9

1,007

7,404

494

979

4,871

0

51,26

6

Numb

er

emplo

yee

1343

5,003

2,683

391

474

7,055

1,850

2,628

6,083

127

1,468

708

2,750

34

355

1,901

0

33,51

1

wome

n

1213

2,447

1,147

135

233

3,283

358

483

1,398

38

1,262

455

996

123

387

696 0

13,44

2

Numb

er

men

1203

3,267

12,92

0

455

1,970

9,458

1,830

2,730

11,57

6

719

11,75

8

1,278

9,399

408

993

6,164

0

74,92

5

total

1053

5,714

14,21

4

590

2,203

12,59

4

2,188

3,213

12,97

4

757

13,02

1

1,732

10,39

5

532

1,380

6,860

0

88,36

7

part-

time

1052

639

360 51

88

1,669

83

226

851 41

781

206

400 32

187

279 0

5,894

NUMB

ER O

F PE

RSON

S EM

PLOY

ED A

T TH

E EN

D OF

THE

YEA

R

Numb

er

full-ti

me

1051

5,28

3

13,82

9

557

2,14

3

11,59

7

2,12

8

3,04

7

12,41

0

736

12,47

4

1,57

1

10,11

6

511

1,25

7

6,67

2 0

84,33

1

Secto

r

Shipp

ing ag

ents

and f

orwa

rder

s.....

........

.......

Carg

o han

dlers

........

........

........

........

........

......

Shipp

ing co

mpan

ies....

........

........

........

........

...

Road

tran

spor

t......

........

........

........

........

........

.

Othe

r ser

vices

........

........

........

........

........

........

Ener

gy....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

Oil in

dustr

y.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

Chem

icals

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

Shipb

uildin

g and

repa

ir.....

........

........

........

.....

Car m

anufa

cturin

g.....

........

........

........

........

....

Elec

tronic

s......

........

........

........

........

........

........

Metal

-wor

king i

ndus

try....

........

........

........

.......

Fishin

g......

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

Food

indu

stry.

........

........

........

........

........

........

Othe

r indu

stry.

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Publi

c sec

tor....

........

........

........

........

........

......

Tota

l.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

Bron: NBB.



Table 65 SOCIAL BALANCE SHEETS IN 2002 BY SECTOR (continued)

Indefi

nite

perio

d

3103

976

2,021

127

441

1,664

115

295

1,133

109

1,064

268

788

102

101

1,228

0

10,43

2

RESI

GNED

Numb

er

(in V

TE)

3053

1,464

2,419

333

766

3,237

332

350

1,707

237

2,026

356

1,225

802

312

1,773

0

17,33

7

unive

rsity

2333

19

14 5 1 63 6 30

39 0 8 6 12 0 1 13 0

217

highe

r

2323

145 51

6 9

188 70

58

95 0 17 4 19 0 4 41 0

707

secu

ndar

y

2313

297

221 10

31

482 60

9

166 1 71

28

117 8

105 64

0

1,670

Wom

en

prim

ary

2303

21

22 1 4

156 0 0 7 1 88

0 6 3 16 8 0

334

unive

rsity

2233

34

55 8 1

158 16

167 93

5 38

16

34 2 5

111 0

743

highe

r

2223

195 87

17

21

357 38

76

134 1 46

27

64 0 6

238 0

1,307

secu

ndar

y

2213

374

1,55

3 48

258

931 86

51

506 21

448 64

411 8

116

838 0

5,712

Men

prim

ary

2203

34

90

12

116

209 0 2 44

1

323 0 76

38

14

356 0

1,315

Indefi

nite

perio

d

2103

919

1,827

70

405

1,865

77

290

440 23

331

104

410 59

78

1,429

0

8,326

ENTE

RED

Numb

er

(in F

TE)

2053

1,434

2,203

263

742

3,448

277

394

1,088

141

1,126

153

870

737

297

1,971

0

15,14

3

Secto

r

Shipp

ing ag

ents

and f

orwa

rder

s.....

........

.......

Carg

o han

dlers

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Shipp

ing co

mpan

ies....

........

........

........

........

...

Road

tran

spor

t......

........

........

........

........

........

..

Othe

r ser

vices

........

........

........

........

........

........

Ener

gy....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

Oil in

dustr

y......

........

........

........

........

........

........

Chem

icals.

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

Shipb

uildin

g and

repa

ir......

........

........

........

.....

Car m

anufa

cturin

g.....

........

........

........

........

.....

Elec

tronic

s.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

.

Metal

-wor

king i

ndus

try....

........

........

........

.......

Fishin

g.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Food

indu

stry..

........

........

........

........

........

........

Othe

r indu

stry.

........

........

........

........

........

........

Publi

c sec

tor....

........

........

........

........

........

.......

Tota

l......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.

Bron: NBB.



ANNEX 8: MARITIME TRAFFIC BY PORT IN 2002

TABLE 66 MARITIME TRAFFIC IN THE PORT OF ANTWERP

Commodity

Unloaded (thousands of tonnes)

Loaded (thousands of tonnes)

Total (thousands of tonnes)

Relative share (in p.c.)

General cargo................................... 30,362 42,974 73,336 55.7 Iron and steel products ...................... 2,040 6,228 8,268 6.3 Non-ferrous metals ............................ 532 107 639 0.5 Fertilizers / chemicals ........................ 62 323 385 0.3 Wood.................................................. 428 104 532 0.4 Paper and cellulose ........................... 2,995 345 3,340 2.5 Fruit .................................................... 1,391 10 1,401 1.1 Cereals............................................... 13 44 57 0.0 Rolling material .................................. 653 1,384 2,037 1.5 Flour ................................................... 0 588 588 0.4 Sugar.................................................. 11 602 613 0.5 Containers.......................................... 21,455 31,562 53,017 40.3 Other general cargo........................... 783 1,677 2,460 1.9 Bulk cargo......................................... 42,233 16,059 58,292 44.3 Petroleum........................................... 6,247 55 6,302 4.8 Petroleum products............................ 12,237 6,885 19,122 14.5 Chemicals .......................................... 4,059 2,103 6,162 4.7 Ores ................................................... 5,911 649 6,560 5.0 Coal.................................................... 8,403 429 8,832 6.7 Cereals............................................... 941 617 1,558 1.2 Fertilizers............................................ 1,319 3,321 4,640 3.5 Sand and gravel................................. 1,234 551 1,785 1.4 Other bulk cargo ................................ 1,881 1,449 3,330 2.5 Total................................................... 72,595 59,033 131,628 100.0

Source: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

TABLE 67 MARITIME TRAFFIC IN THE PORT OF GHENT

Commodity





Agricultural products .......................... 1,181 149 1,330 5.5 Foodstuffs and cattle feed ................. 3,980 673 4,653 19.4 Solid mineral fuels.............................. 3,648 277 3,925 16.4 Petroleum and petroleum products ... 2,483 354 2,837 11.8 Ores and metal residues.................... 5,023 703 5,726 23.9 Products from the metal industry....... 534 824 1,358 5.7 Crude minerals and buidling materials............................................. 666 159 825 3.4 Fertilizers............................................ 700 141 841 3.5 Chemicals .......................................... 578 247 825 3.4 Other cargo ........................................ 901 759 1,660 6.9

Total................................................... 19,694 4,287 23,981 100.0

Source: Havenbedrijf Gent GAB


TABLE 68 MARITIME TRAFFIC IN THE PORT OF OSTEND

Commodity





Conventionnel cargo and bulk....... 1,646 14 1,660 26.4 Ferrochrome ...................................... 56 0 56 0.9 Gasoil................................................. 20 0 20 0.3 Sand and gravel ................................ 1,367 0 1,367 21.8 Wood ................................................. 17 0 17 0.3 Cobble stone ..................................... 12 0 12 0.2 Magnesium oxide .............................. 7 0 7 0.1 Orthoxylene ....................................... 1 0 1 0.0 Scrap ................................................. 2 0 2 0.0 Sepiolite ............................................. 80 0 80 1.3 Silo machinery Jetfoil......................... 0 1 1 0.0 Coal ................................................... 40 2 42 0.7 Waterglass......................................... 13 13 26 0.4 Containers........................................ 31 10 41 0.7 Rolling material .................................. 1,795 2,733 4,528 72.1 Tourist cars ...................................... 25 26 51 0.8 Total .................................................. 3,465 2,773 6,239 100.0

Source: AG Haven Oostende

TABLE 69 MARITIME TRAFFIC IN THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE

Commodity





Agricultural products.......................... 379 25 404 1.2 Other foodstuffs and cattle feed ........ 185 58 243 0.7 Solid mineral fuels ............................. 70 0 70 0.2 Petroleum and petroleum products ... 3,025 0 3,025 9.2 Ores, metal scrap, roasted iron pyrite .................................................. 10 0 10 0.0 Iron, steel and non-ferrous metals .... 1 17 18 0.1 Crude minerals and buidling materials ............................................ 1,544 21 1,565 4.8 Ferilizers ............................................ 2 0 2 0.0 Chemicals.......................................... 221 5 226 0.7 Other cargo........................................ 11,806 15,567 27,373 83.1 Total .................................................. 17,243 15,693 32,936 100.0

Source: Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeevaartinrichtingen (MBZ)


ANNEX 9: GLOSSARY AND MARITIME TRANSPORT

1 Glossary

• As defined in the Oxford English dictionary Port: a place by the shore where ships can shelter from storms or load and unload; a harbour, a haven. • As defined by M. Stopford83: Port: geographical area where ships are brought alongside land to load and discharge cargo. Port authority: organization responsible for providing the various maritime services required to bring ships alongside land (public bodies or private companies). Terminal: section of the port consisting of one or more berths devoted to a particular type of cargo handling. Provision is also made here for storage areas. • Other elements of port terminology84: Dry bulk *: cargo transported loose (ores, coal and grain, etc.). Liquid bulk *: liquid cargo, mainly oil and derivatives. Container: large, standard-format metallic box of 20 or 40 feet (6.1 or 12.2 metres) in length, used for transporting various types of cargo. * The opposite of bulk cargo is general cargo (by container, ro-ro or general). Cargo ship: ship for transporting goods. (e.g. for general cargo) Ro-Ro: roll on roll off: horizontal handling of cargo using wheeled vehicles both inside and outside the ship, compare with Lo/Lo - lift on lift off – vertical handling. TEU or « Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit »: unit used to measure the capacity of a cargo ship or of a containers' terminal, and to work out statistics related to transhipment of containers in a given port. Short containers are twenty feet in length. One TEU corresponds on average to 11 tonnes of cargo. Draught: vertical distance between the waterline and the keel. Terminal capacity: the number of containers that can be handled at the terminal in one year. The capacity is measured either in TEU (the most commonly-used unit), tonnes, or the number of containers. It depends on technical factors such as the length of the quay wall, the ground depth and the length of time that the containers remain at the terminal. dwt or « deadweight tonnage »: a ship's maximum authorised freight, expressed in TEU or in tonnes – including cargo, passengers and fuel. Scheduled navigation: navigation following a fixed route (called line), at fixed times and with fixed landing berths, irrespective of the ship's cargo. Short-sea shipping (or SSS): navigation carried out within the limits assigned to long-distance voyages, and at a limited distance from the coastline. 83 Martin Stopford, « Maritime Economics », Routledge (1997), p29. 84 Most of these definitions are taken from the weekly bulletin of Kredietbank no.16, 31 May 1996.


Maritime traffic: total of all the cargo loadings and unloadings which take place in a port during a given period of time. These figures are used to classify ports by size (cf. chapter 1).

2 Maritime transport

Maritime transport economics, which forms the focus of this study, is an area of transport economics cutting across two disciplines, namely economics and civil engineering. Transport economics is different from other fields of economic science in that it considers the activities' spatial dimensions, which represent a cost. This cost is linked as much to the structure of the networks that the producers and consumers use, as it is to the supply and demand profile for a given good. Transport costs vary, depending on the regions of the world and the requirements in terms of speed (e.g.: lean production, just-in-time, etc.). The economic problems associated with transport are thus complex and are a major factor for a great number of players: vehicle designers, energy producers, government, etc. Furthermore, at European level, motorways, railways and waterways are developed in order to increasingly satisfy the need for structural development in the least advanced regions. Policies are therefore long-term in nature. Mathematical models for maritime activity have been developed, including that of « ship market modelling », which enables the supply and demand pattern in the particular case of maritime traffic, to be applied85. In view of the fact that there is often no alternative to ocean-going transport, the supply and demand equation for maritime transport follows the equation below:

DDt = f (CTt,AHt) SSt = f (MFt,Pt)

where DD = demand for seaborne transport (expressed in tonnes x km); CT = tonnes of cargo transported in time period; AH = average haul of cargo (in km) SS = supply of seaborne transport (in tonnes of cargo x km); P = ship productivity (in tonnes of cargo x km / dwt / annum); MF = merchant fleet (in dwt); t = year subscript

Demand, measured in tonnes x km, is defined by the tonnage of cargo to be transported and the distance to be covered per tonne. Supply of transport capacity, measured in the same units, is determined by the capacity of the merchant fleet according to the ships' maximum capacity and the performance of the fleet, i.e. the average tonnage multiplied by the average annual distance covered, taking account of the ships' maximum capacity. Maritime ports provide the only interface between land and sea. The majority of cargo activities are carried out in the ports, as dictated by loading and unloading operations.

85 Martin Stopford, « Maritime Economics », Routledge (1997), pp. 515- 516. The units used in that book are: tons and miles.


3 Intermodality86

In the transport sector, the competitive environment that exists between the different modes of transport (maritime or inland water, road, rail and air) leads them to become segmented, which runs counter to integration. Each mode of transport benefits from its own specific advantages in terms of cost, service, reliability, speed and safety. In this respect, pubic monopolies have done very little to further integration, even though governments have understood the need to do so. The concept of the intermodal transport chain is the result of advances in technology, and in particular information technologies (e.g. Electronic Data Interchange or EDI). The development of container transport during the sixties and the privatisations, which began in this sector in the eighties, signalled the starting point for intermodality. Major integrated transport agencies now provide « door-to-door » services in such a way that the customer no longer has to take account of the way in which his cargo is handled by different charter companies using different modes of transport. Only the cost and the quality of the service are of importance to the customer. Transport systems encompassing several means of transport may be viewed in two ways: o Intermodal transport network: logistically integrated system using two or more modes of transport. These share

certain characteristics with regard to cargo handling, enabling freight (or passengers) to be transferred between these modes of transport during the journey between the point of departure and the point of arrival;

o Multimodal transport network: all of the modes of transport providing connections between points of departure and arrival. Intermodal transport is not always applicable.

The limits to intermodality are imposed by factors of time, space, network model, number of hubs and connections, as well as the type and characteristics of the convoys and terminals. In an intermodal environment, the success of containerisation – the traffic of which is increasing – is based on several factors: o manoeuvrability of containers; o standardisation of the means of transport (ISO standards); o flexibility of use and automated management; o low cost (if compared, for example, to the price for bulk shipments); o speed of transhipment operations; o ease of storage since a container often constitutes its own store; o safety (very low level of cargo loss); o optimal use of space (the capacity of a container ship is three to six times greater than that of a traditional cargo

ship). On the other hand, infrastructure costs related to this type of transport are very high, which limits the number of terminals that can be set up, especially in developing countries. Throughout the Hamburg - Le Havre range, companies now have an extremely wide choice of operators within an intermodal environment. Cost and the duration of transport are the first decision-making criteria. Other factors (reliability, safety, etc.) also have a cost dimension. However, the technical, organisational and operational obstacles and those related to market conditions sometimes run counter to this decision-making process. If we set aside the individual aspects, it is evident that transport by road, rail and waterways has different cost functions, given the current state of the market (price of fuels, infrastructures and costs associated with their usage, etc.). Thus, transportation by road turns out to be the most competitive means of transport for shorter distances (less than 750 km). Rail is the cheapest solution for intermediate distances (between 750 and 1,500 km) although in Europe, the incompatibility of cross-border networks is still a problem87. For long distances (more than 1,500 km), maritime transport remains the most competitive means of transport by far.

86 Sources: final report of the Services fédéraux des affaires Scientifiques, Techniques et Culturelles (SSTC - ULg) on « Inland

water transport and its long-term development », Anast, December 2000 and the work of Prof. Dr. J-P. Rodrigue of the Department of Economics and Geography at Hofstra University - New York.

87 Different types of electrical supply, gauge, etc. These are all problems to which the Trans-European Network is trying to provide medium-term solutions.


Bibliography

Antwerp Port Authority (2003), « Port of Antwerp: Bulk Liquid Logistics in the Heart of Europe », Antwerp.

National Bank of Belgium - NBB -, « Report 2002 - Part 1: Economic and financial developments », Brussels.

NBB, Antwerp Branch (2003), « Economisch Belang van Zeehavens: Haven van Antwerpen », Year 2001,

Antwerp.

NBB, Ghent Branch (2003), « Economisch Belang van Zeehavens: Haven van Gent », Year 2001, Ghent.

NBB, Ghent Branch (2003), « Economisch Belang van Zeehavens: Haven van Oostende », Year 2001, Ghent.

NBB, Ghent Branch (2003), « Economisch Belang van Zeehavens: Haven van Zeebrugge », Year 2001, Ghent.

NBB, Antwerp Branch (2003), « Economisch Belang van Zeehavens: Methodologie », Year 2001, Antwerp.

NBB, Microeconomic Analysis office (2003), « De autonijverheid in België: het belang van het toeleveringsnetwerk

rond de assemblage van personenauto's », Working Paper no. 38, Brussels.

NBB, Microeconomic Analysis office (2003), « Results of non-financial companies in 2002 », Economic Review

2003/4, Brussels.

NBB, Microeconomic Analysis office (2004), « ICT Sector in Belgium », Economic Review 2004/1, Brussels.

NBB, Central Balance Sheet office, Annual accounts filed from 1995 to 2002, Brussels.

NBB, Analysis and Research Group office (2003), « The Social Balance Sheet 2002 », Economic Review 2003/4,

Brussels.

NBB, Economic and Financial Statistics office, « Note on methodology about the supply and use tables », Brussels.

G. Blauwens, De Brabander, etc. (1993), « De Dynamiek van een Haven », Pelckmans Kapellen.

G. Blauwens, P. d'Haens and A. Van Breedam (2004), 26de Vlaams Wetenschappelijk Economich Congres:

« Logistiek, Laatste front in de concurrentieslag », Garant Antwerp.

European Commission (1997), Green book: « Maritime ports and infrastructures », European Community.

European Commission (2001), White book: « European transport policy for 2010: time to decide », European

Community.

Eurostat (1996), « European System of Accounts: ESA95 », European Community.

Elvira Haezendonck (2001), « Essays on Strategy Analysis for Seaports », VUB - Garant Louvain.

Havenbedrijf Gent GAB, « Jaarverslag 2002 », Ghent.

National Accounts Institute (NAI) (2003), « Input - Output Tables of Belgium for 1995 », NAI Brussels.


KB Weekly Bulletin no. 51/16 (May 1996), « Flemish Maritime Ports », Kredietbank Weekly Bulletin, Brussels.

Lloyd Special Report (1998), « Zeebrugge, a port for the 21st century », Antwerp.

Lloyd Special Report (1999), « Flanders Ports », Antwerp.

Lloyd Special Report (1999), « Antwerp: Flanders' main port », Antwerp.

Lloyd Special Report (2000), « Flanders Distribution Center », Antwerp.

Lloyd Special Report (2000), « Flemish ports gear up for Ro-Ro developments », Antwerp.

Lloyd Special Report (2000), « Flanders European stronghold for breakbulk », Antwerp.

Reginald Loyen & Erik Buyst (2003), « Struggling for leadership: Antwerp - Rotterdam Port Competition between

1870 - 2000 », Physica Verlag Heidelberg NY.

Maatschappij voor het Grond- en Industrialisatiebeleid van het Linkerscheldehoevergebied, « Jaarverslag 2001 ».

Roger Martin (2002), Villes et Ports - Assemblée générale: « The Antwerp & Flemish port strategy with regard to the

global stevedoring companies », External relations Antwerp Port Authority.

Nationale Havenraad (1993), « Toegevoegde waarde van maritieme activiteiten in Nederlandse zeehavens »,

Nederlands Economisch Instituut, Rotterdam.

Nationale Havenraad, « Jaarverslag 1998 », Nederlands Economisch Instituut, Rotterdam.

Office Belge du Commerce extérieur (2003), « Statistiques du Commerce Extérieur de la Belgique », OBCE.

Pr. Dr. Ch. Peeters, G. Facon, Ir. P. Vandendriessche - Policy Research Corporation NV - (1995), « De Haven als

Economisch Motor van de Regio », Garant Louvain.

Pr. Dr. Ch. Peeters, Hir. F. Hendrickx, Drs. H. Kneepkens, Hir. S. Bruynseels - Policy Research Corporation NV -

(1999), « De Nederlandse zeehavensector », Delft University Press.

Pr. Dr. Ch. Peeters, Ir. A. Lefever, Drs. A. Soete, Ir. P. Vandendriessche, Dr. H. Webers. - Policy Research

Corporation NV - (1997), « De Nederlandse Maritieme Cluster », Delft University Press.

Jean-Paul Piriou (2001), « La comptabilité nationale », Paris.

Policy Research Corporation NV. (1994), « The Flemish Port Sector », Research by order of the Flemish Region

Authorities.

Port Authority Zeebrugge , « Annual Report 2002 », Bruges - Zeebrugge.

Port of Antwerp (1998), « Port of Antwerp: Pivot of world trade », Publitra Antwerp.

Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, « Transport Geography on the Web », Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra

University - New York.


Services fédéraux des affaires Scientifiques, Techniques et Culturelles (2000), « Transport fluvial et son

développement durable », SSTC - Anast, ULg Liège.

Pr. Dr. Eddy Somers & Capt. André De Wilde (1998), « Port Marketing: Evolution of Ports », Maritiem Instituut -

Universiteit Gent.

Special Lloyd (2001), « Antwerp: Flexibility is the Key », Antwerp.

Special Lloyd (2002), « Ro-Ro: a means to rethink the supply chain », Antwerp.

Martin Stopford (1997), « Maritime Economics », Routledge London.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, « Review of Maritime Transport 2003 », New York and

Geneva 2003.

H. Van Der Zee (Article in the Lloyd 26 February 2004), « Ostend has increased its market share in 2003 », The

Lloyd.

K. Van Miert (1997), « Competition rules and maritime ports », Speech given in Ghent on 6 October 1997.

Vlaamse Havencommissie , « Jaarverslag 2002 », VHC - SERV, Brussels.


NATIONAL BANK OF BELGIUM - WORKING PAPERS SERIES 1. « Model-based inflation forecasts and monetary policy rules » by M. Dombrecht and R. Wouters, Research

Series, February 2000.

2. « The use of robust estimators as measures of core inflation » by L. Aucremanne, Research Series, February

2000.

3. « Performances économiques des Etats-Unis dans les années nonante » by A. Nyssens, P. Butzen,

P. Bisciari, Document Series, March 2000.

4. « A model with explicit expectations for Belgium » by P. Jeanfils, Research Series, March 2000.

5. « Growth in an open economy: some recent developments » by S. Turnovsky, Research Series, May 2000.

6. « Knowledge, technology and economic growth: an OECD perspective » by I. Visco, A. Bassanini,

S. Scarpetta, Research Series, May 2000.

7. « Fiscal policy and growth in the context of European integration » by P. Masson, Research Series, May 2000.

8. « Economic growth and the labour market: Europe's challenge » by C. Wyplosz, Research Series, May 2000.

9. « The role of the exchange rate in economic growth: a euro-zone perspective » by R. MacDonald, Research

Series, May 2000.

10. « Monetary union and economic growth » by J. Vickers, Research Series, May 2000.

11. « Politique monétaire et prix des actifs: le cas des Etats-Unis » by Q. Wibaut, Document Series, August 2000.

12. « The Belgian industrial confidence indicator: leading indicator of economic activity in the euro area? » by J.J.

Vanhaelen, L. Dresse, J. De Mulder, Document Series, November 2000.

13. « Le financement des entreprises par capital-risque » by C. Rigo, Document Series, February 2001.

14. « La nouvelle économie » by P. Bisciari, Document Series, March 2001.

15. « De kostprijs van bankkredieten » by A. Bruggeman and R. Wouters, Document Series, April 2001.

16. « A guided tour of the world of rational expectations models and optimal policies » by Ph. Jeanfils, Research

Series, May 2001.

17. « Attractive Prices and Euro - Rounding effects on inflation » by L. Aucremanne and D. Cornille, Documents

Series, November 2001.

18. « The interest rate and credit channels in Belgium: an investigation with micro-level firm data » by P. Butzen,

C. Fuss and Ph. Vermeulen, Research series, December 2001.

19 « Openness, imperfect exchange rate pass-through and monetary policy » by F. Smets and R. Wouters,

Research series, March 2002.

20. « Inflation, relative prices and nominal rigidities » by L. Aucremanne, G. Brys, M. Hubert, P. J. Rousseeuw and

A. Struyf, Research series, April 2002.

21. « Lifting the burden: fundamental tax reform and economic growth » by D. Jorgenson, Research series, May

2002.

22. « What do we know about investment under uncertainty? » by L. Trigeorgis, Research series, May 2002.

23. « Investment, uncertainty and irreversibility: evidence from Belgian accounting data » by D. Cassimon,

P.-J. Engelen, H. Meersman, M. Van Wouwe, Research series, May 2002.

24. « The impact of uncertainty on investment plans » by P. Butzen, C. Fuss, Ph. Vermeulen, Research series,

May 2002.

25. « Investment, protection, ownership, and the cost of capital » by Ch. P. Himmelberg, R. G. Hubbard, I. Love,

Research series, May 2002.

26. « Finance, uncertainty and investment: assessing the gains and losses of a generalised nonlinear structural

approach using Belgian panel data », by M. Gérard, F. Verschueren, Research series, May 2002.

27. « Capital structure, firm liquidity and growth » by R. Anderson, Research series, May 2002.


28. « Structural modelling of investment and financial constraints: where do we stand? » by J.- B. Chatelain,


29. « Financing and investment interdependencies in unquoted Belgian companies: the role of venture capital » by

S. Manigart, K. Baeyens, I. Verschueren, Research series, May 2002.

30. « Development path and capital structure of Belgian biotechnology firms » by V. Bastin, A. Corhay, G. Hübner,

P.-A. Michel, Research series, May 2002.

31. « Governance as a source of managerial discipline » by J. Franks, Research series, May 2002.

32. « Financing constraints, fixed capital and R&D investment decisions of Belgian firms » by M. Cincera,


33. « Investment, R&D and liquidity constraints: a corporate governance approach to the Belgian evidence » by P.

Van Cayseele, Research series, May 2002.

34. « On the Origins of the Franco-German EMU Controversies » by I. Maes, Research series, July 2002.

35. « An estimated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model of the Euro Area », by F. Smets and R. Wouters,

Research series, October 2002.

36. « The labour market and fiscal impact of labour tax reductions: The case of reduction of employers' social

security contributions under a wage norm regime with automatic price indexing of wages », by K. Burggraeve

and Ph. Du Caju, Research series, March 2003.

37. « Scope of asymmetries in the Euro Area », by S. Ide and Ph. Moës, Document series, March 2003.

38. « De autonijverheid in België: Het belang van het toeleveringsnetwerk rond de assemblage van

personenauto's », by F. Coppens and G. van Gastel, Document series, June 2003.

39. « La consommation privée en Belgique », by B. Eugène, Ph. Jeanfils and B. Robert, Document series, June

2003.

40. « The process of European monetary integration: a comparison of the Belgian and Italian approaches », by I.

Maes and L. Quaglia, Research series, August 2003.

41. « Stock market valuation in the United States », by P. Bisciari, A. Durré and A. Nyssens, Document series,

November 2003.

42. « Modeling the Term Structure of Interest Rates: Where Do We Stand? », by K. Maes, Research series,

February 2004.

43. « Interbank Exposures: An Empirical Examination of Systemic Risk in the Belgian Banking System », by

H. Degryse and G. Nguyen, Research series, March 2004.

44. « How Frequently do Prices change? Evidence Based on the Micro Data Underlying the Belgian CPI », by L.

Aucremanne and E. Dhyne, Research series, April 2004.

45. « Firm's investment decisions in reponse to demand and price uncertainty », by C. Fuss and Ph. Vermeulen,

Research series, April 2004.

46. « SMEs and Bank Lending Relationships: the Impact of Mergers », by H. Degryse, N. Masschelein and J.

Mitchell, Research series, May 2004.

47. « The Determinants of Pass-Through of Market Conditions to Bank Retail Interest Rates in Belgium », by F.

De Graeve, O. De Jonghe and R. Vander Vennet, Research series, May 2004.

48. « Sectoral vs. country diversification benefits and downside risk », by M. Emiris, Research series, May 2004.

49. « How does liquidity react to stress periods in a limit order market? », by H. Beltran, A. Durré and P. Giot,


50. « Financial consolidation and liquidity: prudential regulation and/or competition policy? », by P. Van Cayseele,


51. « Basel II and Operational Risk: Implications for risk measurement and management in the financial sector »,

by A. Chapelle, Y. Crama, G. Hübner and J.-P. Peters, Research series, May 2004.

52. « The Efficiency and Stability of Banks and Markets », by F. Allen, Research series, May 2004.


53. « Does Financial Liberalization Spur Growth? » by G. Bekaert, C.R. Harvey and C. Lundblad, Research series,

May 2004.

54. « Regulating Financial Conglomerates », by X. Freixas, G. Lóránth, A.D. Morrison and H.S. Shin, Research

series, May 2004.

55. « Liquidity and Financial Market Stability », by Maureen O’Hara, Research series, May 2004.

56. « Economic importance of the flemish maritime ports: report 2002 », by F. Lagneaux, Document series,

June 2004.